[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (Syst
From: Stephen Snow <s40w5s () gmail ! com>
Date: 2022-05-26 18:18:56
Message-ID: df94e85130a56d810e769975066c8b23ebb9445a.camel () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
So my take on the TCK is that Red Hat signed the OCTLA and Fedora
Community get's to test their OpenJDK against it as a subequence. I
didn't think Fedora the project, had any legal except what Red Hat
provides, maybe I'm mistaken though so someone should clarify if they
know for sure. Not only that, if we (Fedora Project) were the
signatories, we would need auditing internally and externally to comply
with requirements of the OCTLA from what I understand, which I imagine
we do not have, nor want to entertain since it would require
significant dedicated support likely. Basically anytime you use the TCK
you need the paper trail.
I still think the original proposal has some merrit at least of raisng
the point of the workload required to maintain Fedora Lunix's java
development stack. A rethink here would be good overall and really the
technical build issues Jiri Vanik presented need to be overcome and
should be the projects focus, not legal. Perhaps Fedora Project lead
could discuss this with RH legal to get their perspective. I'm sure
they're aware of the arrangement as it has been used by Fedora, and
Fedora is not listed as signatory, and someone had to sign the
agreement to get the TCK in the first place.
From that POV, to me as OpenJDK is still GPL3 released, and Fedora
Project get's to use Red Hat's TCK to verify certification of
compliance, so win win. Red Hat needs it for their own OpenJDK, which
we no doubt have some involvement with, so again win win.
Regards,
Stephen Snow
On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 11:38 -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 11:32, Kevin P. Fleming <kpfleming@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> > > 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be
> > distributed?
> >
> > I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version
> > being
> > distributed could very well be fully compliant (would pass the TCK
> > if
> > tested), but may not have been tested.
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes, that goes into the my misunderstanding of what TCK is. Some
> systems can only say they are 'compliant' if they are 'certified' and
> anything else is 'fraudulent'. Others allow for 'complaint' and
> 'certified' to be different.
>
> In either case, I should have clarified with 'certified'.
>
> > --
> > Kevin P. Fleming
> > He/Him/His
> > Principal Program Manager, RHEL
> > Red Hat US/Eastern Time Zone
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<html><head></head><body><div>So my take on the TCK is that Red Hat signed the OCTLA \
and Fedora Community get's to test their OpenJDK against it as a subequence. I didn't \
think Fedora the project, had any legal except what Red Hat provides, maybe I'm \
mistaken though so someone should clarify if they know for sure. Not only that, if we \
(Fedora Project) were the signatories, we would need auditing internally and \
externally to comply with requirements of the OCTLA from what I understand, which I \
imagine we do not have, nor want to entertain since it would require significant \
dedicated support likely. Basically anytime you use the TCK you need the paper \
trail.</div><div><br></div><div>I still think the original proposal has some merrit \
at least of raisng the point of the workload required to maintain Fedora Lunix's java \
development stack. A rethink here would be good overall and really the technical \
build issues Jiri Vanik presented need to be overcome and should be the projects \
focus, not legal. Perhaps Fedora Project lead could discuss this with RH legal to get \
their perspective. I'm sure they're aware of the arrangement as it has been used by \
Fedora, and Fedora is not listed as signatory, and someone had to sign the agreement \
to get the TCK in the first place.</div><div><br></div><div>From that POV, to me as \
OpenJDK is still GPL3 released, and Fedora Project get's to use Red Hat's TCK to \
verify certification of compliance, so win win. Red Hat needs it for their own \
OpenJDK, which we no doubt have some involvement with, so again win \
win.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Stephen Snow</div><div>On Thu, \
2022-05-26 at 11:38 -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div \
dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 11:32, Kevin P. Fleming <<a \
href="mailto:kpfleming@redhat.com">kpfleming@redhat.com</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px \
#729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote:<br>> \
2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be \
distributed?<br></div><div><br>I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: \
the version being <br>distributed could very well be fully compliant (would pass the \
TCK if <br>tested), but may not have been \
tested.<br></div><div><br></div><br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, that goes \
into the my misunderstanding of what TCK is. Some systems can only say they are \
'compliant' if they are 'certified' and anything else is 'fraudulent'. Others allow \
for 'complaint' and 'certified' to be different.</div><div><br></div><div>In either \
case, I should have clarified with \
'certified'.</div><div> </div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; \
border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>-- <br>Kevin P. \
Fleming<br>He/Him/His<br>Principal Program Manager, RHEL<br>Red Hat US/Eastern Time \
Zone<br>_______________________________________________<br>devel mailing list -- <a \
href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org" \
target="_blank">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>To unsubscribe send an email to \
<a href="mailto:devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org" \
target="_blank">devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>Fedora Code of Conduct: <a \
href="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/</a><br>List \
Guidelines: <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines</a><br>List \
Archives: <a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>Do \
not reply to spam on the list, report it: <a \
href="https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br \
clear="all"><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>devel \
mailing list -- <a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br></div><div>To \
unsubscribe send an email to <a \
href="mailto:devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br></div><div>Fedora \
Code of Conduct: <a href="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct \
/">https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/</a><br></div><div>List \
Guidelines: <a href="https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines">https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines</a><br></div><div>List \
Archives: <a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedorapro \
ject.org">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br></div><div>Do \
not reply to spam on the list, report it: <a \
href="https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure">https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure \
</a><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span></span></div></body></html>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic