Mark Reinhold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I do not think that the section on portability fixes is really needed, > > since, even with portability fixes, I would expect that the vast > > mojority of the code would be the same. > > Actually, some portability fixes can be quite significant. Porting the > HotSpot virtual machine to a brand-new architecture, e.g., can easily > create a few hundred thousand lines of new code in a hundred or so new > files. Such a change would not pass the "vast majority" test, hence the > need for the current sub-clause (a).
Ok. I defer to your judgement in this matter. > > This is not a critical change, since you are going to put a > > clarification in the FAQ. But it would be better to clear it up in > > the license. > > If you're content with security fixes being discussed in the FAQ then > I'd like to leave the text of the notice as-is. I am not the person who decides. The FTP masters are the ones who decide. However, from my experience of watching them over the past seven years, I think that would be sufficient. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
