On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:44 PM Emilian Bold <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > > Indeed, but you've also modified Apache NetBeans, which is why it is called CoolBeans. If you put the features that are unique to CoolBeans into Apache NetBeans, then what you're distributing would be NetBeans indeed. You'd simply be bundling it with a JDK and not modifying NetBeans and therefore you'd be entitled tio call it NetBeans. Gj > > 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 > > > >
