Thanks for everyone's help !
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Pavel Porvatov <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Sean, > > I've committed your fix ( > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/awt/jdk/rev/323f6d046cc9) and closed CR > 7049024 > > Thanks for contribution, > > Pavel. > > Hi all, > > On 28/10/2011 11:39, Neil Richards wrote: > > : > Hi Pavel, > I'm not sure I understand the problem here. > > There have been several successful submissions previously committed > using exactly this form of copyright statement, eg: > > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/c0602036be5d > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/98688c4be64b > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/338c5b815ff2 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/c1e87a18e46a > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/28037efa90a3 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/rev/7d1b13126574 > > I'm sure if you check on your side you'll find that this is an accepted > and agreed form of statement for IBM folk to use (for IBM created > content, such as new testcases). > > Regards, Neil > > Neil seems to have cc'ed me on this reply, I was otherwise not following > this thread. > > Pavel - we went through similar confusion on core-libs-dev a while back. > Looking at this webrev, I don't see any issues as it's the same header that > Neil, and his colleagues, have used on other tests that they have > contributed. > > I don't see problems with the header now as well, because I got approve > for this copyright a couple days ago... So I will commit the fix soon. > > Assuming IBM contributes under the OCA then IBM keeps the copyright, > since the OCA isn't a copyright assignment. See also Mark Reinhold's > explanation: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7-dev/2009-June/000716.html > > That an old explanation. Situation could be changed since that time... > > Regards, Pavel > > > -- Best Regards, Sean Chou
