What about asking repo owner / Oracle of editing the license and make it all CPE? After all it's free software, that they made open source, publicy available and with a very permissive license so I see no reason why they shouldn't make it also easy to use in case like this if asked
Il giorno lun 17 mag 2021 alle ore 11:19 Neil C Smith <neilcsm...@apache.org> ha scritto: > On Sun, 16 May 2021 at 18:28, Matthias Bläsing > <mblaes...@doppel-helix.eu> wrote: > > Oracle decided to add the "Certain source files > > distributed ..." paragraph, which make the license from my POV > > problematic as it puts the uncertainty onto the user and not the > > copyrightholder. > > Yes, as far as I'm aware it's mainly this uncertainty which leaves > GPL+CPE in the Cat X, ask per use, on Legal's side, rather than the > text of CPE itself. And Legal have still not resolved that we, as > user, can assert this in the way done here. > > > In the future I wonder whether each nb-javac release will need to be > > vetted like this, > > Assuming no clarification in the repository of the terms, then that > seems to be the only option. And hopefully we can get resolved that > that approach is OK. > > > This also raises the question whether the build > > is reproducible and whether it is ok, that there is no direct > > connection between the binary artifact ant the source artifact. > > Yes, and the ambiguity of the LauncherProperties file does raise a > question about the current process there too. > > A longer term approach to this might be to download the sources from > Maven, validate the license headers (akin to RAT), and build from > source as part of our build? > > 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 > > > >
