On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:27:34AM -0400, Kurt Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-04-10 at 21:23 -0500, Matthew Martin wrote:
> > Add lots of whitespace and change a few types from signed to
> > unsigned.
> > Probably should get a REVISION bump, but I'm not sure where that goes
> > for subpackages.
> > Is anyone already an OpenJDK contributor or know someone upstream
> > with
> > whom I could work?
> Hey Matthew,
> I'm both upstream and the port maintainer here. Thanks for working on
> this. There are some aspects of the OpenJDK project that are particular
> to it. In order for me to accept patches for upstream I need to respect
> Oracle's policies. Unless things have changed recently, they require
> authors of patches to sign their contribution agreement (ugh, yea I
> know that sucks). For example getting the bsd-port project accepted by
> Oracle required an review of all the bsd-port changes, who wrote them
> and confirmation they had signed the SCSL (Sun's old agreement) or
> Oracle's current one. Some patches needed to be dropped and recreated
> from scratch in that process.
> Several times I have received small fixes for OpenJDK for things where
> I simply did not look at the patch, recreated the problems and authored
> an independent fix so I can push it upstream. I believe I'm in one of
> of those cases now unless all of authors (including the ones taken from
> FreeBSD) have signed the contribution agreement.
> I suggest you finish the work and I'll have to avoid participating now.
> When I have time I can recreate the compilation issues using the
> upstream repo and fix independently so I can get them upstream.
I was looking at the OCA last night; and although I'm generally not fond
of giving up moral rights, in this case the patches are largely just
adding whitespace and I don't think are (or at least should not be)
copyrightable in the first place. If it would make things easier,
I wouldn't mind signing it. The patches I sent are solely my own work
and not taken from FreeBSD.
- Matthew Martin