(original) (raw)

� � Thanks for everyone's help !

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Pavel Porvatov <pavel.porvatov@oracle.com> 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