7045697: JDK7 THIRD PARTY README update

Brad Wetmore bradford.wetmore at oracle.com
Wed Jul 13 01:21:31 UTC 2011

Hi Mark/Andrew,

I can't answer all of your questions.  I'm trying to find out who asked 
for the change and have them respond.

On 7/12/2011 6:34 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:40:43PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:

>> Since this is a license update I wanted to double check, but the change
>> diff is somewhat hard to read. Sadly I couldn't find the mailinglist
>> this was discussed on, nor does the referenced bug report make clear
>> what exactly was fixed/changed. Could someone summarize the legal
>> updates, or point me to the correct mailing list archive discussion on
>> this changeset?
> I also couldn't find any discussion on this either, and two of the
> dependent bugs are not visible.

I'm not sure if there was an external discussion.  There has been an 
ongoing effort to make sure all of the proper attributions have been 
made, so it probably came from that group.

Of particular concern is:
> +
> +%% This notice is provided with respect to Elliptic Curve Cryptography, which
> +is included with JRE 7, JDK 7, and OpenJDK 7.
> +
> +You are receiving a copy of the Elliptic Curve Cryptography library in source
> +form with the JDK 7 source distribution and object code in the JRE 7&  JDK 7
> +runtime.
> +
> +The terms of the Oracle license do NOT apply to the Elliptic Curve
> +Cryptography library program; it is licensed under the following license,
> +separately from the Oracle programs you receive. If you do not wish to install
> +this program, you may delete the library named libsunec.so (on Solaris and
> +Linux systems) or sunec.dll (on Windows systems) from the JRE bin directory
> +reserved for native libraries.
> It is not completely clear that the 'Oracle license' is the lesser GPL 2.1
> that appears below; is this the case and could this not be stated explicitly
> in the text?

Good question, I don't know.

> The above also speaks about removing binaries.  I didn't think binaries were
> allowed in the OpenJDK source trees?

I believe this file is meant to be installed in the final JRE/JDK 
products under <java-home>/THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.txt (Kelly?).  So I 
think this phrase is referring to the built Oracle products.  These two 
dynamic lib files are definitely not checked into the source trees, they 
are built as part of the OpenJDK/OracleJDK builds. 
(jdk/src/share/classes/sun/security/ec/*, jdk/make/sun/security/ec/*)

> I also didn't realise we were receiving
> any 'Oracle programs'.

Probably some boilerplate from somewhere, the person who asked for the 
change should address this point.

I know this is not a complete answer, but hope this helps a little.


More information about the discuss mailing list