incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2
Date Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:59:48 GMT
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
> > these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
> > the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
> > NetBeans build system produces.
>
> It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed
> knowledge things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are
> licensed. The review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount
> time if all of the jar contained their license (and notice) files.
>

Thanks. I'll look at how to include that. I assume the usual conditions
apply, i.e. that the license and notice in each jar should only refer to
what's in the jar, right? (As a consequence the content might differ among
modules in general.)

>
> > ./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
> >> - CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE
> >>
> >
> > Hm, this should be under Apache 2.0 - this is built from
> "o.openidex.util"
> > from the source bundle. Is there something we need to fix so it does not
> > appear to be under CDDL?
>
> Well the jar doesn’t contain any license but a google search of the jar
> name indicated it was CDDL I could be wrong.
>

I suspect that this will be true for almost all NetBeans jars. As NetBeans
was under CDDL-GPL-2-CP.


>
> > Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?
>
> They may well do but TLP don’t always get things 100% right (the lucerne
> NOTICE file for instance) so IMO we should try and work what is the right
> hing to do here.
>
> >> - are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?
> >
> > I don't know, it has been released this way.
>
> If that the case "Copyright 2017 NetBeans” is probably not correct it
> should be copyright ASF right? Or are the jars not generated from source in
> the Apache Netbeans project?
>
> > Ah, I guess the naming may be confusing here - I believe these are
> standard
> > NetBeans artifacts, for certain core stuff NetBeans is using
> "org.openide"
> > package (and module name). Built from openide.compat and openide.dialogs
> in
> > the source bundle, respectively. Is there something we can do to reduce
> > confusion?
>
> Change the package name perhaps? Not that it needs to be done right away
> and they may be good reasons for not changing it if other projects rely on
> it.
>

Everything under org.openide is an API, so I don't think changing that name
is an option, sorry.

Jan


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message