netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <>
Subject Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
Date Sat, 05 Nov 2016 16:06:40 GMT
On Nov 5, 2016 1:53 AM, "Niclas Hedhman" <> wrote:
> Yes, I think we all understand the "end user interaction model" that you
> have in mind to overcome the licensing issues.
> However, I am talking about licensing principles and how the ASF has
> operated over the last 15-20 years. We take licensing extremely seriously,
> to ensure that there are as little risk as possible for ALL downstream
> users, regardless if they are individuals or large companies, regardless
> their intended use, building what you offer or repackaging completely.
> is Open SOURCE, not OLB (openly licensed binaries) software.
> And as already outlined and identified by you and others, the most
> point is nb-javac being GPL'd (leaving of the LGPL parts for now).
> community need an unambiguous answer from VP Legal Affairs, whether the
> "java" cluster at Apache Netbeans, that will end up depending on nb-javac,
> is exempt from required to be released as GPL. I am pretty sure a lawyer's
> input is needed on this.

Resolved seems pretty clear on this to me, especially in the context of
existing projects...see below... But I do not believe you can leave LGPL or
GPL+CPE for now. It is definitely part of the answer. I mentioned some
clauses from resolved in another reply which are directly related as well.

> If it is exempt, then your strategy will be "somewhat annoying" but not a
> show-stopper for the "java" cluster to remain at Apache.

Here is a big question though. How is this different than httpd (example
... mod_perl), any Java project depending on java.*, the systems needing
glibc, or any other gnu tools suite compiler and headers, to build, which
are already at Apache?

> If it is not exempt from the GPL virality, then either the "java" cluster
> need to be developed outside Apache Netbeans (with naming issues, I guess)
> OR a technical solution be provided, where the nb-javac is made to depend
> on Apache Netbeans and not the other way around.
> Ideally, I think ASF as a whole would like to see a solution where there
> no dependency on such a component, and that a "regular OpenJDK system
> requirement" existed instead.

This to me isn't inherently different. GNU+CPE IS why Java continues to
work for all the Java projects. Am I missing something? I am just looking
for the apples to oranges difference here. It seems the same.



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