volker.simonis at gmail.com
Sat Dec 23 17:02:33 UTC 2017
Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> schrieb am Sa. 23. Dez. 2017 um 12:25:
> On 20/12/17 09:54, Volker Simonis wrote:
> > Yes, that's exactly the issue. And it was communicated to the OpenJDK
> > Governing Board more than two and a half years ago (see my mail
> > "Providing 'hsdis' binaries not possible because of GPLv2/GPLv3
> > license clash" from May 2015 ) and since then reiterated several
> > times. I'll plan to raise this issue again at the public GB meeting at
> > FOSDEM in February next year - however with very little hope that it
> > will be resolved :(
> How can the GB resolve it? I can't think of anything we can do.
The GB obviously can not solve it directly in the same way it can not solve
the (still existing) inability to push HotSpot changes or to finally create
a Vulnerability Group.
But it can acknowledge the problem and try to put some pressure on Oracle
in order to work on and resolve the problem with a higher priority.
If a part of the OpenJDK is practically unusable because of licensing
issues I consider this inherently unhealthy. From my understanding it is
the GB which is responsible to “oversees the structure, operation, and
overall health of the OpenJDK”. Who else if not the GB should be qualified
to work on resolving it?
> Andrew Haley
> Java Platform Lead Engineer
> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=FAD+A5CD&entry=gmail&source=g>6035 332F A671
More information about the build-dev