Hi all,
Some comments:
== GPLv2-CPE License
The GPLv2-CPE license was chosen back in 2007 for Java SE so that:
----
"In the case of Java SE (Java Standard Edition), we're enhancing (the
GPL) with the classpath exception," Green said. "So when you're working
on top or shipping applications with the (Java) libraries and virtual
machine, you're not affected by the Java license."
Rich Green, Sun's executive vice president of software, February 2007
https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-picks-gpl-license-for-java-code/
----
So I can't see a problem of making a "convenience pack" bundling OpenJDK
and NetBeans together (of course with proper licensing information to
the user and proper attributions). I think the objective of the GPLv2-CE
license, as Green said back in 2007, was precisely that this could be done.
In case of doubt we could always double-check with the OpenJDK Team to
see if there's any problem in doing so.
Having said that, the so called "convenience pack" could be done by the
ASF, or by a committer, or by an individual, or by a company, and hosted
anywhere.
Should the ASF do it? Well, why not? It already has the infrastructure
to deliver the result (the mirror system), and is something that helps
final users to use the project (and that always helps).
== Executable
Having said that, and in order to answer the question, what
"executables" Apache NetBeans project provides?
- None.
From the definition in the Collins dictionary:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/executable
Def.- executable. Adjective. An executable file or program contains
software that runs when it is opened.
As far as I know the NetBeans IDE is not run when opened (unless you
already have a JDK), so it has no executables on it. The executable is
the JDK implementation, and not the NetBeans IDE.
Kind regards,
Antonio
P.S.: I'd suggest posting Lazy Consensus votes so that some part of the
weekend is included in the voting period, for a bigger audience.
El 3/7/20 a las 23:15, Matthias Bläsing escribió:
Hi,
I think this deserves a bit more context for people not following
apache-legal and with all matters legal I have understanding for this.
The discussion is this: It is well established, that we can rely on
GPLv2-CPE runtime libraries (aka the JDK, OpenJFX). It is a bit of a
gray area why we may link against the JDK (is it a system dependency or
is the CPE enough or maybe both arguments hold). What is under
discussion is, whether or not we may include GPLv2-CPE binries into
binary convenience releases.
There are multiple open questions, that need answering:
a) what are the requirements of the GPLv2-CPE from the perspective
of the ASF
b) what is the definition of the term "executable"
c) what is the definition of the term "independend module"
the list quoted below was my reply on apache legal, but in the mean
time another aspect was brought to my attention:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.en.html
it might or might not be relevant for the questions. In java for
example a single class file could be considered executable.
But this whole discussion is only relevant, if all the above questions
are answered and apache legal (or the foundation board) agree.
Yes, we as the Apache NetBeans community need to form an opinion, but
all that is meaningless, if apache legal/the board NACKs that.
The thread on apache-legal is still running - a bit slow, but maybe
that is a good sign. I say we should give the lawyers a bit more time
and not jump to action.
I don't want to be misunderstood: I want Apache NetBeans to be able to
bundle GPLv2-CPE binaries, I openly question whether the "system
dependency theory" for java holds today, BUT at this time we should
focus on the archivable in the ASF framework today:
a) it was already established, that installer may install GPLv2-CPE
binaries
b) the ASF policy does not bind outside parties
c) we already have options to install GPLv2-CPE dependencies when
needed, they currently are just a PITA in corner cases
So at this point in time I think forming consensus for one of the
questions is not helpful. I don't think we have consensus.
I there are people out there wondering what they could do to help: Work
on the points enumerated in the last paragraph, if you have connections
to the FSF/Oracle get the lawyers to create clear definitions for the
license and if you have connections to ASF/Oracle try to get the
lawyers to talk to each other.
For everyone that reaches this point: Thank you for your attention.
Greetings
Matthias
Am Mittwoch, den 01.07.2020, 15:04 +0200 schrieb Jaroslav Tulach:
Hi.
The purpose of this email is to build consensus of what the term
"executable" means in the context of Apache NetBeans project.
There has been a discussion on [legal mailing list](
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0482d10f784f26f72b836f8480a13c7876ef8499f1f285166b1cf241%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E)
and it turns out that understanding the meaning of term "executable"
is
quite important. In order to [Avoid Unnecessary Discussion & Stating
Lazy
Consensus](http://community.apache.org/committers/lazyConsensus.html)
I am
calling a lazy consensus vote. I am convinced such a lazy vote has to
happen here, at the Apache NetBeans project, as only the Apache
NetBeans
PMC can decide what forms "executable" in our project and what does
not.
Matthias offered following classification of various Java artifacts
on the
legal list:
1. A jlinked image. This is a directory structure consisting of the
required modules of the JDK and all other required modules.
Distribution would be done as a ZIP or packed as an installer.
2. A fat jar - with all dependencies folded into one JAR
3. A directory structure with several files (jars and other
resources). This directory would be packed as a ZIP and
distributed.
4. An installer image, that contains the directory structure
described
before, but makes the distributable executable and helps the user
installing the application
5. A packaging of several libraries into a containing binary. NBMs,
WARs and OSGI jars are samples for this, in all formats the outer
container holds/can hold other libraries.
6. Individual library jars
7. In the future AOT compiled binaries (currently graalvm native
image, in the future maybe integrated into the JDK)
For Matthias 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are executables. I fully support his
opinion
and I want this to become the official definition of "executable" for
the
Apache NetBeans project. Let's give the usual 72h for stating
objections.
Should nobody object, then following artifacts of [NetBeans 12.0](
https://netbeans.apache.org/download/nb120/nb120.html) are going to
be
treated as executables:
Binaries:
* netbeans-12.0-bin.zip (SHA-512, PGP ASC)
Installers:
* Apache-NetBeans-12.0-bin-windows-x64.exe (SHA-512, PGP ASC)
* Apache-NetBeans-12.0-bin-linux-x64.sh (SHA-512, PGP ASC)
* Apache-NetBeans-12.0-bin-macosx.dmg (SHA-512, PGP ASC)
Other artifacts are *not* executables, namely:
* Source: netbeans-12.0-source.zip (SHA-512, PGP ASC)
* Javadoc for this release is available at
https://bits.netbeans.org/12.0/javadoc
* Bits uploaded to Maven central for release 12.0
* NBMs on our update center
Shall the lazy vote end with a consent, then Apache NetBeans project
will
use here-in proposed classification for artifacts of release 12.0 as
well
as future releases, unless redefinition of the term "executable" gets
(lazy) voted again on this mailing list.
Thanks Matthias for providing the classification. Thanks everybody in
advance for your support, lazy consent or even disagreement.
-jt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
