Hi Ken, I think your input is needed on these legal-discuss threads: https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201911.mbox/%3C4169588f-731b-df79-de80-d6640a9e9fa8%40gmail.com%3E https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201911.mbox/%3CCEB62E1B-B884-4DD3-92BA-5A979AD21D02%40dotnetrdf.org%3E https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201911.mbox/%3Cd99bd5ff-c44b-a724-d5e7-28de791462e6%40gmail.com%3E
And/or on these legal jira questions: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-488 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-489 Jan On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM 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 > > > >
