On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 at 08:48, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > OK, looks like we're good to move forward on this if the ambiguity about > > CPE applying to all sources can be addressed. Over to you! > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-563 > > > > Congratulations Neil! The path to avoid downloading of `nb-javac` after each > start with an empty user directory is now open! > > How do we check all files of `nb-javac` are covered by CPE?
"We" don't! Before you get too congratulatory, the resolution we have at present is - "As long as Oracle can provide a clear statement in LICENSE.txt that nb-javac is licensed under GPL+CPE in its entirety" It takes the issue of the NetBeans PMC auditing everything out of the equation entirely at the moment. It leaves us with the need for an unambiguous clarification in the Oracle nb-javac repository that all sources (at least those used to create the binary), and any binary created from that repository, are covered by CPE. Ideally we would also be using an Oracle distributed binary unambiguously under those terms. We might be OK with the current binary distribution, and we might be OK with the clarification being elsewhere than the LICENSE.txt file, but we need to go back to legal when we know what's feasible from Oracle side. Hopefully we then have a precedent for what needs to happen with CPE inclusion in future. As a matter of fact, is there a full unambiguous list of what sources and related binaries carry CPE in the whole of OpenJDK somewhere? Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
