netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John McDonnell <mcdonnell.j...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:05:55 GMT
Hi, 

So how do you see this going forward?

Currently we have 6 download packages, will we have multiple ones when we Apache Netbeans
is released?, or will we have 4 downloads (HTML+Javascript, PHP & C/C++, ALL), but the
installer always gives the option to install Java?  As I think I could get behind that, provided
we don’t forget to advertise that Java is a “first class citizen” in the Netbeans Ecosystem.


Regards

John



> On 7 Nov 2016, at 22:56, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> It would be a smooth process via the installer.
> 
> Gj
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:43 PM, John Yeary <johnyeary@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hello All,
>> 
>> I agree with John.
>> 
>> One of the things that I really find annoying about Eclipse is that you
>> have all of these options, and as a new user it is a daunting task to pick
>> what you need, or even KNOW what you need.
>> 
>> If we start asking new users to go download modules to make it a functional
>> IDE, it is a non-starter. The ease of use that NetBeans is known for
>> suddenly is no longer.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________
>> 
>> John Yeary
>> ____________________________
>> *NetBeans Dream Team*
>> 
>> *Founder Greenville Java Users GroupJava Users Groups Community Leader*
>> ____________________________
>> 
>> <http://javaevangelist.blogspot.com/>  <https://twitter.com/jyeary>
>> <http://www.youtube.com/johnyeary>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jyeary>
>> <https://plus.google.com/112146428878473069965>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/jyeary>
>> <http://feeds.feedburner.com/JavaEvangelistJohnYearysBlog>
>> <http://netbeans.org/people/84414-jyeary>
>> 
>> "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
>> though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who
>> neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight
>> that knows not victory nor defeat."
>> -- Theodore Roosevelt
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John McDonnell <mcdonnell.john@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> HI,
>>> 
>>> To me Netbeans has always been first and foremost a Java IDE.  This move
>>> now seems to be making Java an optional extra to Netbeans that means I
>> need
>>> to head off somewhere else to get this nb-javac module.
>>> 
>>> Now I was probably wrong in always thinking that NB is a Java IDE first
>>> and foremost, as when I go to the Downloads[1] page 3 of the 6
>>> download-able packages don’t contain Java.
>>> 
>>> Is it worth getting download numbers for each of the 5 packages and
>> seeing
>>> what % of user base this change would effect currently?
>>> 
>>> Will this additional download drive Java Developers away from Netbeans?
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1]: https://netbeans.org/downloads/ <https://netbeans.org/downloads/>
>>> 
>>>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 15:27, Geertjan Wielenga <
>>> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shan Curcuru wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a
>>>>> *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means
>> no
>>>>> licensing surprises" side.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 1- Yes. Assuming we resolve other issues that are going to be coming
>> up,
>>>> i.e., nb-javac is the current hurdle we're focusing on, though there
>> are
>>>> smaller ones to follow unrelated to this specific legal issue that
>> we're
>>>> now focused on. [See
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
>>> Overview%3A+NetBeans+Structure
>>>> to predict upcoming legal discussions.]
>>>> 
>>>> 2- Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> 3- Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> 4- Yes.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, and I agree, what we're doing is in sync with the "ASF code
>> means
>>>> no licensing surprises" side.
>>>> 
>>>> Gj
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shane Curcuru <asf@shanecurcuru.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2016-11-06 15:01 (-0500), Geertjan Wielenga
>>>>> <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016
at
>> 4:59
>>>>> PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Geertjan and others already clarified and are documenting the
>>>>> modularity of
>>>>>>> NetBeans [2], with the core NetBeans platform being the only
>> required
>>>>> part.
>>>>>>> All other modules (or clusters) being optional.
>>>>>>> So many users might not need the NetBeans Java cluster.
>>>>> ...snip...
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a
>>>>> *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means
>> no
>>>>> licensing surprises" side.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1- If I want a great IDE where I can edit my C, JavaScript, PHP, HTML
>>>>> and other non-Java code, and check it in, build it, etc. - can I
>>>>> download NetBeans (plus perhaps some other modules) where *all* of the
>>>>> source code I'm downloading is under a Category A license?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2- If I then want to use NetBeans to edit/build Java code, apparently
>>>>> (as a new user) I need this nb-javac module from somewhere else which
>>>>> lets NetBeans the product do "useful stuff" with Oracle's current
>> Java,
>>>>> correct?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Java developers today would understand that Oracle's Java platform -
>>>>> which is widely known and used - has GPL related code in it, so they
>>>>> should not be surprised when they have to go download nb-javac from
>>>>> Oracle, nor should they be surprised when the sources for nb-javac are
>>>>> also licensed under the GPL.  Does that make sense?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3- Java developers who want to use NetBeans + nb-javac to build their
>>>>> own Apache-licensed Java programs for redistribution would never need
>> to
>>>>> worry about the GPL, because it would be clear as a Java programmer
>> and
>>>>> regular IDE user that the license of the IDE I'm using to write/build
>> my
>>>>> code doesn't affect the license I can use on the code I'm writing in
>>>>> that IDE.  Correct?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If all three of those are "Yes", then I'm +1 for this solution and +1
>>>>> for LEGAL-279.  The separation between Apache licensed Netbeans as an
>>>>> IDE and the underlying tooling integration with the Java compiler
>>>>> tooling using GPL seems clear, and given any experienced Java
>> developer,
>>>>> they would not be surprised to see the licensing difference.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4- If I want to extend the editing features in NetBeans for Java code
>>>>> (which I think you call "Java cluster"?), can I use the Apache license
>>>>> for patches and redistribution of the NetBeans editor code that
>> displays
>>>>> the UI, syntax coloring, etc. elements?  I.e. is the editor portion
>>>>> going to be all Apache, and it's just the compiler (when tooling
>>>>> integration sends code off to do bytecode) that is under GPL?
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Shane
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message