netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geertjan Wielenga <>
Subject Re: Current status of NetBeans code donation
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:28:34 GMT
The point from Oracle's point of view is that there should not be code in
Apache's repositories that is part of the JDK or forked from the JDK or for
some reason or another should not be donated. It's not about the "ASF will
not complain", instead, it's about "Oracle does not want to donate code by
accident that should not be donated".

I have a feeling that the incremental code donation approach might be the
one that ends up being taken, starting from the "org.netbeans" namespace,
which is all the code that we want to have in Apache NetBeans anyway. There
are quite a few different people involved in this, so quite some
discussions, and, for sure, the current draft of the CCLA is not the one
that will be signed.

Apologies for the time this is taking, though note that this was going to
happen sooner or later in the process; I assumed it would be at the end and
now it's taking place in the beginning.



On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Emilian Bold <>

> > All this is the case since, again, anything we put into an Apache repo is
> then at that stage Apache code.
> BTW, not sure if we understand things the same here.
> With the CCLA Oracle grants a *license* of the code, not full ownership.
> So, anything we put into the Apache repo will have the ASF as a licensee
> and they will be free to use the Apache license for that code.
> So it's not like Oracle loses control of some precious thing. They still
> own the copyright. Worse case scenario a specific snapshot in time of some
> piece of code becomes Apache licensed.
> Furthermore, I believe that even if we sign the CCLA as is, we could
> still *import
> the code* incrementally.
> So, there is still an opportunity for Oracle to intervene and say: "hold
> on, we didn't expect this code to be there and we want to explicitly
> exclude it from the grant and update the CCLA". It seems understandable and
> I don't believe the ASF will complain. This could even be part of the
> incubator code cleanup we have to do anyhow.
> It took me a few hours to write some scripts to check the module licenses.
> What kind of effort are you doing behind the scenes now? Is some developer
> / lawyer taking each module and dependency and whitelisting it or what?
> It seems important to me we start this already. I believe we could use the
> current CCLA and start importing the code incrementally.
> --emi
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since transferring code to Apache means that the code automatically
> becomes
> > Apache licensed, it is of extreme importance that we don't inadvertently
> > donate code that we don't want to donate.
> >
> > E.g.,  simply donating '' is going to be problematic,
> since
> > there's for example the 'nb-javac', i.e., javac fork in there, which
> indeed
> > can be excluded, though there are other pieces in, such
> as
> >, which we also don't want to donate since that's
> > also a fork of something GPL-licensed from the JDK. Moreover,
> > contains modules that are also potentially
> > contentious.
> >
> > Hence, there is quite some work going on at the moment to identify which
> > parts we actually do want to donate. We don't want to find out afterwards
> > that we have donated code that belongs to the JDK which, of course, we
> can
> > then remove from the Apache repo, although we'd still have the history of
> > that erroneous commit in there, which we do not want to have happen.
> >
> > Potentially, we need to go through every package going out and
> specifically
> > delineate what we are donating, if there's pieces in there that we're not
> > donating.
> >
> > Maybe one approach could be to limit the wording of the code grant for
> the
> > repositories to source code written in the Java
> > programming
> > language to just those source code files within the "org.netbeans"
> > namespace, i.e. in the "org.netbeans" package hierarchy. Then, while the
> > transfer of that subset of code is taking place, which would be the
> > majority of the code we'd want anyway, we could look at the other code
> on a
> > case by case basis for inclusion in the donation.
> >
> > Anyway, just sketching out the situation right now -- and again I had
> > assumed, falsely, that all these considerations would only be applicable
> at
> > the end of incubation, not right at the start. All this is the case
> since,
> > again, anything we put into an Apache repo is then at that stage Apache
> > code.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >

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