Producing community binaries for OpenJDK
benjamin.john.evans at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 15:22:35 UTC 2017
That's not at all what I mean, and well you know it.
The industry has a clear, obvious example of a major corporation of
the same standing as Oracle (namely Microsoft) using a contribution
model which is quite literally:
1) I certify that I have the rights to contribute this code
2) I certify that I want to contribute this code under the given
license & accept the terms.
How much more "real world" an example would you like?
Now, if your stated reason was: "Oracle's lawyers do not believe that
the IP regime adopted by Microsoft is sound & do not wish to expose
themselves to liabilities that they believe exist with that model"
then that would be one thing.
But please don't pretend that alternative models "make no sene in the
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:13 PM, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 29.03.2017 16:51, Ben Evans wrote:
>> Microsoft have a simple click-through arrangement, on Github, where I
>> certify I have the right to make the contribution and that I agree to
>> the relevant licensing terms. The first time I make a PR, I am
>> prompted to perform the clickthrough, and then it goes away.
>> Why is the situation with OpenJDK any different at all to that?
> OpenJDK does not use GitHub. It's not owned by Microsoft. It uses the OCA.
> You can find out more about it here: http://openjdk.java.net/contribute/ .
> If what you're asking here is why one can't just contribute other people's
> random code off GitHub to OpenJDK, that's because one can only contribute
> what's one's own. Other people's code is not.
> If there is a doubt whether something is one's own or not, it's much better
> and simpler for OpenJDK developers to err on the side of caution, and
> neither encourage nor accept such contributions at all.
> And that's ultimately why all the occasionally occurring ideas about
> alternative contribution flows are doomed from the start. They make no sense
> in the real world.
> dalibor topic
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:00 PM, dalibor topic <dalibor.topic at oracle.com>
>>> On 29.03.2017 10:59, Martijn Verburg wrote:
>>>> As long as we're talking about flow of ideas, that might make sense.
>>>> If the expectation is that patches and build infra code would get
>>>> into OpenJDK, I think that's very unlikely, as OpenJDK requires an
>>>> OCA for contributions, while GitHub does not. So over time, the cost
>>>> of untangling who did what in some random GitHub repo in order to
>>>> arrive at something that can be contributed tends to overshadow any
>>>> benefit from such accumulations of code.
>>>> Sure, that's actually a cycle I want to introduce (some sort of CLA) but
>>>> appreciate the IP flow here.
>>> There is no need for any cycles.
>>> OpenJDK Projects can not take random code from GitHub (or any other
>>> Regardless of the arrangement you arrive at for managing some GitHub
>>> As soon as you start having more than one contributor, you end up with
>>> something none of them can go ahead and just contribute on their own. At
>>> that point the conversation about contributions becomes exponentially
>>> complicated, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it's not worth
>>> spending the time or effort on.
>>>> Which we might do if this thing has legs, but it has a long way to go to
>>>> see if it's useful or desirable yet.
>>> Sure, but in that case you should not really expect to see any of that
>>> make its way back into OpenJDK. For example, you most likely won't be
>>> to take any such code back into OpenJDK once you do decide to start a new
>>> Basically, once you have a PoC of some random idea for the JDK developed
>>> outside OpenJDK, you might have just enough code to prove some idea
>>> but you may have too much code and history for it to be worth putting any
>>> work into turning it into something that can be contributed back to
>>> if you have more than one contributor.
>>> So one can assume that such externally, 'socially' developed code will be
>>> the vast majority of cases undesirable for OpenJDK, regardless of its
>>> utility. That means the best potential outcome for its authors is to
>>> something useful but undesirable.
>>> dalibor topic
>>> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
>>> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
>>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
>>> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
>>> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
>>> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
>>> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
>>> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
>>> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
>>> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
>>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
>>> practices and products that help protect the environment
> <http://www.oracle.com> Dalibor Topic | Principal Product Manager
> Phone: +494089091214 <tel:+494089091214> | Mobile: +491737185961
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG | Kühnehöfe 5 | 22761 Hamburg
> ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG
> Hauptverwaltung: Riesstr. 25, D-80992 München
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht München, HRA 95603
> Komplementärin: ORACLE Deutschland Verwaltung B.V.
> Hertogswetering 163/167, 3543 AS Utrecht, Niederlande
> Handelsregister der Handelskammer Midden-Niederlande, Nr. 30143697
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander van der Ven, Jan Schultheiss, Val Maher
> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing
> practices and products that help protect the environment
More information about the adoption-discuss