11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

mark.reinhold
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/

Quick links to handier HTML diffs:

  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html

“OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
write “the JDK.”

- Mark


[1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Erik Joelsson
Looks good.

/Erik


On 2018-06-27 15:08, [hidden email] wrote:

> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
>
> Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
>
>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
>
> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
> write “the JDK.”
>
> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Tim Bell
Mark-

Looks good to me as well.

Tim

On 06/27/18 15:33, Erik Joelsson wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> /Erik
>
>
> On 2018-06-27 15:08, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Volker Simonis
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
>
> Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
>
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
>
> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
> write “the JDK.”
>

Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!

Do you plan to do the same for the OpenJDK web pages and the OpenJDK
Wiki. Do you plan to scan all the OpenJDK mails and reject them if
they use "OpenJDK" inappropriately?

And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
change is basically a NOP.

Best regards,
Volker

[1] http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:9evmnn.2.10

> - Mark
>
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Aleksey Shipilev-4
On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
>>
>> Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
>>
>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
>>
>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
>> write “the JDK.”
>>
>
> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!

+1

Also, "(open-source) JDK" is way too generic, and does awkwardly apply to other JDK's in the wild,
including IBM's, Azul's, Excelsior's, etc. It stands to reason that build/test instruction for
OpenJDK project use "OpenJDK" to describe what those instructions apply to. It seems less confusing
to find the appropriate noun to go with "OpenJDK", e.g. "OpenJDK build", "OpenJDK binary", "OpenJDK
workspace", etc?

-Aleksey

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Tim Bell
2018/6/27 16:19:58 -0700, [hidden email]:
> Looks good to me as well.
>
> Tim
>
> On 06/27/18 15:33, Erik Joelsson wrote:
>> Looks good.
>>
>> /Erik

Thanks!

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Aleksey Shipilev-4
In reply to this post by Aleksey Shipilev-4
On 06/28/2018 09:14 AM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:

> On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205956
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/
>>>
>>> Quick links to handier HTML diffs:
>>>
>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/building.html.hdiff.html
>>>   http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/rev/8205956/doc/testing.html.hdiff.html
>>>
>>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
>>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
>>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
>>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
>>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
>>> write “the JDK.”
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!
>>
>> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
>> change is basically a NOP.
>
> +1
>
> Also, "(open-source) JDK" is way too generic, and does awkwardly apply to other JDK's in the wild,
> including IBM's, Azul's, Excelsior's, etc. It stands to reason that build/test instruction for
> OpenJDK project use "OpenJDK" to describe what those instructions apply to. It seems less confusing
> to find the appropriate noun to go with "OpenJDK", e.g. "OpenJDK build", "OpenJDK binary", "OpenJDK
> workspace", etc?

I hate to be "that guy", but cannot help to notice the change was pushed [1] with comments above by
Volker and myself ignored, and not even acknowledged. I hope this is not how reviews work in
OpenJDK... JDK? work now.

-Aleksey

[1] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk/jdk/rev/7c728fa9d1af

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Volker Simonis
2018/6/27 23:21:34 -0700, [hidden email]:

> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
>> write “the JDK.”
>>
>
> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!

Trademark law doesn’t always make a lot of sense.

> Do you plan to do the same for the OpenJDK web pages and the OpenJDK
> Wiki.

Yes, on a best-effort basis, but priority will be given to more-prominent
documents such as these.

>       Do you plan to scan all the OpenJDK mails and reject them if
> they use "OpenJDK" inappropriately?

No, of course not.  That’d be silly.

> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
> change is basically a NOP.

Trademark law doesn’t always make a lot of sense.

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

mark.reinhold
In reply to this post by Aleksey Shipilev-4
2018/6/28 0:14:26 -0700, Aleksey Shipilev <[hidden email]>:
> On 06/28/2018 08:21 AM, Volker Simonis wrote:
>> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!
>
> +1
>
> Also, "(open-source) JDK" is way too generic, and does awkwardly apply
> to other JDK's in the wild, including IBM's, Azul's, Excelsior's,
> etc.

Agreed.  That’s another reason not to use that term.

>      It stands to reason that build/test instruction for OpenJDK
> project use "OpenJDK" to describe what those instructions apply to. It
> seems less confusing to find the appropriate noun to go with
> "OpenJDK", e.g. "OpenJDK build", "OpenJDK binary", "OpenJDK
> workspace", etc?

Yes, we could do that, but why use even more words to describe what
everyone knows is just “the JDK”?

When we started the OpenJDK Community we intentionally chose not to
use “OpenJDK” in the names of the Projects that produce JDK feature and
update releases.  That’d just be redundant: “The OpenJDK Project in the
OpenJDK Community”?

Similar reasoning applies here.  The context of these instructions makes
it clear that they’re for the source code to a JDK implementation that
you found in the OpenJDK Community.  There’s no need to insert “OpenJDK”
everywhere.

- Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Philip Race
In reply to this post by Volker Simonis
I see the TM for JDK as Volker notes,
but searching for OpenJDK at the same site turns up nothing ..

-phil

On 06/27/2018 11:21 PM, Volker Simonis wrote:
> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
> change is basically a NOP.
>
> Best regards,
> Volker
>
> [1]http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:9evmnn.2.10

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

Volker Simonis
In reply to this post by mark.reinhold
On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:02 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2018/6/27 23:21:34 -0700, [hidden email]:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:08 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> “OpenJDK” is a trademarked term, per the OpenJDK Trademark Notice [1].
>>> As such it should be used only as an adjective, and not as a noun.
>>> Phrases such as “the OpenJDK” could be replaced by the more correct,
>>> and much more verbose, “the OpenJDK JDK,” or “the open-source JDK,”
>>> but in most cases the context is sufficiently clear that we can just
>>> write “the JDK.”
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't see any sense in this change!
>
> Trademark law doesn’t always make a lot of sense.
>
>> Do you plan to do the same for the OpenJDK web pages and the OpenJDK
>> Wiki.
>
> Yes, on a best-effort basis, but priority will be given to more-prominent
> documents such as these.
>
>>       Do you plan to scan all the OpenJDK mails and reject them if
>> they use "OpenJDK" inappropriately?
>
> No, of course not.  That’d be silly.
>
>> And by the way, "JDK" is an Oracle trademark as well (see [1]) so this
>> change is basically a NOP.
>
> Trademark law doesn’t always make a lot of sense.
>

This still doesn't explain why replacing one trademark with another
one is helpful here. "Building the JDK" is clearly using the trademark
"JDK" as a noun and thus infringing the "sens-less" trademark laws.
After Phil's remark, OpenJDK doesn't even seem to be registered as a
trademark, so in that sense the old version "Building the OpenJDK"
seemed to be even more trademark law compliant.

And by the way, I totally agree with Aleksey that changes shouldn't be
pushed if reviewers raise concerns (at least not before these concerns
have been addressed). Just to quote your words about the new release
cadence: "..if your changes don't make it into this release, they will
make it in to the next one which is just six month away" :)

> - Mark
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 11 RFR (XS) 8205956: Fix usage of “OpenJDK” in build and test instructions

mark.reinhold
2018/6/29 3:03:09 -0700, [hidden email]:
> This still doesn't explain why replacing one trademark with another
> one is helpful here.

Perhaps some trademarks are more important than others.

> After Phil's remark, OpenJDK doesn't even seem to be registered as a
> trademark, so in that sense the old version "Building the OpenJDK"
> seemed to be even more trademark law compliant.

I’m not qualified to engage in a legal argument, in this or any other
forum, and neither is Phil.  In this matter I am following the advice of
Oracle’s legal department regarding the usage of Oracle’s trademarks.

> And by the way, I totally agree with Aleksey that changes shouldn't be
> pushed if reviewers raise concerns (at least not before these concerns
> have been addressed).

My apologies.  I had no idea this would turn out to be such a volatile
issue.

- Mark