db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "RPost" <rp0...@pacbell.net>
Subject Re: All *.java files with IBM Confidential comments
Date Wed, 08 Dec 2004 01:33:09 GMT
I guess I was hoping I did not have the latest pre-release source. When the
'release' candidate was posted I downloaded the zip file and all files are
extracted to a path of:

incubating-derby-10.0.2.1-src

96 files in this tree have 'IBM' in them and 23 have 'cloudscape'.

Here are all of the files found by searching for 'confidential' in *.java
files. These all have the IBM confidential comment I listed:

package org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info
  ProductVersionHolder.java
package org.apache.derby.iapi.sql.dictionary
  SchemaDescriptor.java
package org.apache.derby.impl.sql.catalog
  SYSALIASESRowFactory.java
  SYSCHECKSRowFactory.java
  SYSCOLUMNSRowFactory.java
  SYSCONGLOMERATESRowFactory.java
  SYSCONSTRAINTSRowFactory.java
  SYSDEPENDSRowFactory.java
  SYSFOREIGNKEYSRowFactory.java
  SYSKEYSRowFactory.java
  SYSSCHEMASRowFactory.java
  SYSTABLESRowFactory.java
  SYSVIEWSRowFactory.java
package org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data
  StoredPage.java
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <djd@debrunners.com>
To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2004, at 3:48 PM, RPost wrote:
> >
> >> Do comments like this one in
> >> org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
> >> need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from
the
> >> 10.0.2.1 source.
> >>
> >> /* IBM Confidential
> >
> >
> > Confidential notices should have been changed to IBM Copyright notices
> > before the source was handed over to Apache, but apparently a few files
> > slipped through. I'm guessing that any remaining Confidential notices
> > should probably be changed over to the Apache license header by an IBM
> > employee, but that is just my guess. Ken and/or Dan can provide an
> > official answer to that question.
>
> Looks like my script handled some cases incorrectly, I'll look at fixing
> them.
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBtkoUIv0S4qsbfuQRAh0mAJ0b+2AMdsNthgscd+zM7QJCf//xJACfWhIT
> VDiYkgJfFYdU4rH0X8TV0NU=
> =aN1Q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>


Mime
View raw message