Hey Kirk, Well, on this side we’re ready to move forward, just tell us what we need to do to proceed.
Looking forward to this happening, Gj On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 18:43, Kirk Pepperdine <k...@kodewerk.com> wrote: > Hi Geertjan, > > I can’t personally speak for adopt but my understanding from previous > conversation was Adopt was amicable to this. I think the only issue is man > power to get it done. > > Kind regards, > Kirk > > > > On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:56 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > If we have AdoptOpenJDK officially providing a bundle together with > > NetBeans, then I think we should consider not providing an installer at > all > > — and just make the convenience binary available as a ZIP and point to > > AdoptOpenJDK and OpenBeans and any other bundlers/distributors. > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:53, Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> > >> Excellent news, Kirk. > >> > >> How do we get this done? > >> > >> Gj > >> > >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:49, Kirk Pepperdine <k...@kodewerk.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> Again, I believe that you could distribute from Adopt with a JDK > bundled. > >>> So maybe this is a case where using a 3rd party makes sense. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Kirk > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Kenneth Fogel < > kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I apologize if I misunderstood but the conversation appeared to me, > >>> likely incorrectly, to go beyond just bundling a Java JDK. The > installers > >>> that are already there, are they downloading a JDK if one is not > present? > >>> Requiring a separate install of Java is the status quo. If we could > make > >>> that part of the NetBeans installer then we should an we should pursue > an > >>> exemption to Apache policies if required. > >>>> > >>>> Ken > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > >>>> Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM > >>>> To: dev@netbeans.apache.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process > >>> leave that work to Third Party Distributors > >>>> > >>>> You’re aware that we’re already distributing an installer, right? And > >>> that that is not what we’re talking about? > >>>> > >>>> We’re talking about the fact that we can’t bundle the JDK with that > >>> installer and then distribute that installer from Apache. > >>>> > >>>> A simple link on our download page to OpenBeans and AdoptOpenJDK and > >>> any other distributor is all we need, for the installers of NetBeans > that > >>> bundle the JDK. > >>>> > >>>> Gj > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:20, Kenneth Fogel < > kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca > >>>> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> This is a bad idea. I personally feel that an installer is mandatory. > >>>>> Eclipse and IntelliJ have installers for all platforms. Leaving it to > >>>>> third parties will mean that we have no oversight on the quality and > >>>>> ease of use of the installer. Only distributing a zip file implies > >>>>> that skills beyond learning to code with NetBeans will be required. > We > >>>>> can pretty much write off the education sector if there is no > >>>>> installer. Sorry to be harsh but this is a line I believe we must not > >>> cross. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is unfortunates, as someone has pointed out, that Apache is not > end > >>>>> user friendly but that is no excuse. NetBeans is an end user program > >>>>> and must be as easy to install as any other IDE and have an official > >>> installer. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ken > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> > >>>>> Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM > >>>>> To: Apache NetBeans <dev@netbeans.apache.org> > >>>>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process leave > >>>>> that work to Third Party Distributors > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear all, > >>>>> > >>>>> It is a great burden to us to provide the best out-of-the-box install > >>>>> experience with NetBeans. That would mean, providing an installer > with > >>>>> JDK, nb-javac probably javafx. > >>>>> > >>>>> See the threads: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a3e6051130e18aae3f7a81c562a63ac96 > >>>>> d3a3a07d4bcbee074392d59@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/489f17e30d9125ee48e2d78dc36572db6 > >>>>> a3f5d6474f492458e0db151@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > >>>>> > >>>>> On 11/26/19 9:29 PM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE > >>>>>> with Apache NetBeans. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be > >>>>>> distributed under Apache license, due to CPE 2. CPE only allows > >>>>>> other product built on Java to be distributed > >>>>>> under their own license. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct > >>>>>> (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second > >>>>>> interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The following viable possibilities were brought up: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. We may apply for an exception to the board 2. Use some download > >>>>>> logic in the installer. > >>>>>> 3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on > >>>>>> Apache NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few > >>>>>> distributor for creating installer packages and we limit/drop our > >>>>>> installer bundle creation in the future. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Laszlo Kishalmi > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I do not think that after this discussion we would get the exception > >>>>> from the board Geertjan might try to bring it up there as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> As of me option 2 is questionable. > >>>>> > >>>>> Option 3. is a bit hard to say, but if we can't produce proper > >>>>> installation packages, it would probably better to not create those > >>>>> packages at all, leave that for others. > >>>>> > >>>>> How I imagine that: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. From 11.3 we remove the convenience binaries and installers from > >>>>> our download page > >>>>> 2. We would still create, sign and host our nbm-s. > >>>>> 3. On our download page we have the source package and a section for > >>>>> third party distributors. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well of course this thread is just to start a discussion about this > >>>>> matter. I know it would hurt the brand, but probably it is better > than > >>>>> produce some sub-optimal installers while other parties can come with > >>>>> all the bells and whistles. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> > >>>>> Laszlo Kishalmi > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > >>>> > >>>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > >>> > >>> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > >
