So my take on the TCK is that Red Hat signed the OCTLA and Fedora Community get's to test their OpenJDK against it as a subequence. I didn't think Fedora the project, had any legal except what Red Hat provides, maybe I'm mistaken though so someone should clarify if they know for sure. Not only that, if we (Fedora Project) were the signatories, we would need auditing internally and externally to comply with requirements of the OCTLA from what I understand, which I imagine we do not have, nor want to entertain since it would require significant dedicated support likely. Basically anytime you use the TCK you need the paper trail.
I still think the original proposal has some merrit at least of raisng the point of the workload required to maintain Fedora Lunix's java development stack. A rethink here would be good overall and really the technical build issues Jiri Vanik presented need to be overcome and should be the projects focus, not legal. Perhaps Fedora Project lead could discuss this with RH legal to get their perspective. I'm sure they're aware of the arrangement as it has been used by Fedora, and Fedora is not listed as signatory, and someone had to sign the agreement to get the TCK in the first place. >From that POV, to me as OpenJDK is still GPL3 released, and Fedora Project get's to use Red Hat's TCK to verify certification of compliance, so win win. Red Hat needs it for their own OpenJDK, which we no doubt have some involvement with, so again win win. Regards, Stephen Snow On Thu, 2022-05-26 at 11:38 -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 11:32, Kevin P. Fleming <kpflem...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > On 5/26/22 11:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > 2. Are there ways that a non-TCK compliant version could be > > distributed? > > > > I would suggest phrasing that slightly differently: the version > > being > > distributed could very well be fully compliant (would pass the TCK > > if > > tested), but may not have been tested. > > > > > > > Yes, that goes into the my misunderstanding of what TCK is. Some > systems can only say they are 'compliant' if they are 'certified' and > anything else is 'fraudulent'. Others allow for 'complaint' and > 'certified' to be different. > > In either case, I should have clarified with 'certified'. > > > -- > > Kevin P. Fleming > > He/Him/His > > Principal Program Manager, RHEL > > Red Hat US/Eastern Time Zone > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
