netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geertjan Wielenga <>
Subject Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:27:20 GMT
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
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.


On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shane Curcuru <> wrote:

> On 2016-11-06 15:01 (-0500), Geertjan Wielenga
> <> 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

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