On 23/12/17 17:02, Volker Simonis wrote: > Andrew Haley <a...@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 [1]) 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.
Such as what, exactly? Please propose something. > 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? > > [1] http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/ The GB can only solve problems which, in principle, can be solved. I know of no reasonable way to solve this one. There are some extreme solutions, such as re-licensing all of HotSpot, but that seems disproportionate. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
