> Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling? AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.4.
> NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the > NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is. There was a discussion about this without a conclusion. If the PMC position is that they defer to Apache Legal some sort of FAQ should mention this. > This covers this topic: > http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes > > I.e., if you modify an Apache project then you cannot distribute it under its name. Yet Debian is doing a NetBeans fork using the NetBeans trademark. >[Niel] At what point does a build turn into a derivative? Indeed. > [Niel] It would be good to make more of this configurable in our build scripts > anyway. Would really like it to be easy for a downstream build to > pre-include nb-javac and JavaFX if they want to for example. Would certainly simplify some things for me. > [Geertjan] I'm saying the exact opposite: the world would welcome a NetBeans > installer that would bundle AdoptOpenJDK. But can that installer be called "NetBeans"? If not, I'm already doing that with CoolBeans. > However, that installer cannot be distributed by Apache, since the JDK is GPL-licensed. I'm not talking about distribution, I'm talking about using the NetBeans trademark. Third parties can take care of distribution. What I'm looking for is: * transparency: the project having some guidelines about this. A simple page where you link to http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes is fine by me, but you can't expect some sort of conclusion to be deduced from mail archives. * enforcement: the PMC showing it takes some proactive steps defending the brand / trademark. If name changes are mandatory, start enforcing this rule with obvious trademark infringements, such as Debian. --emi On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:10 PM Geertjan Wielenga <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yup, that would be cool. > > Gj > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:09 PM Neil C Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 10:56 Geertjan Wielenga, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Seems to be Markus Koschany, I'll contact him. If the distro is really > > > different in a significant way, they could call it DebianBeans, maybe. > > :-) > > > > > > > What would life be if you couldn't rely on Debian to screw up a Java > > package?! ;-) > > > > Not sure if they intend to keep packaging - it's still 10? But this feels > > borderline. Modifications to externalize dependencies or control what > > files/modules are included might be something to allow? OTOH, if that leads > > to linking to different versions of dependencies that might not? At what > > point does a build turn into a derivative? > > > > It would be good to make more of this configurable in our build scripts > > anyway. Would really like it to be easy for a downstream build to > > pre-include nb-javac and JavaFX if they want to for example. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Neil > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
