On Sat, 29 May 2021 at 07:19, Jaroslav Tulach <[email protected]> wrote: > > It can't be here can it, from a licensing perspective? > > The GPL-CPE sources would remain hosted where they are - e.g. in the > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk > repository. The only thing that would need to be in here is the build script. > I assume such build script can be Apache licensed.
Well, that was the question! Your repository you linked to has a GPL+CPE license and a load of files with that header. What can be re-licensed and donated, or removed? > Such a verification would be in the build script. > > > then it's easier for PMC review of the > > process, etc. > > +1 having the build script properly reviewed by PMC would simplify the > verification of correctness Yes, but if it proves impossible to have the source patching side here, then it would be good to have at least the verification and compilation from patched sources (published on Maven Central) as part of the NB build? > Alternative: Do it as with launchers: Regular users download pre-built binary. > The final build runs from sources. I'm not sure that's a useful model, and I (and others) have argued for doing separate official ASF releases of launchers and other native binaries so that all main source builds use downloads. The two different paths to build have caused us release issues before, and will likely be more of a problem with things like the new macOS Swift launcher, etc. Having a common path to build the IDE (across all users and OS) is surely better? The wording of CPE also makes publishing of pre-built binaries of nb-javac from here impossible anyway, so we'd still need to resolve that issue. Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
