netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <wadechand...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:20:08 GMT
Those are all solvable problems by download and configuration utilities
folks. JUnit in NetBeans has been this way a long time actually. So, you
need Java, grab the install that supports it, we make it so it lets you
click through some menus, it says "Do you agree to download this GPL
software to use Java support?", and the system is configured per users
actions and instructions. I use a lot of wares that do this now including
Visual Studio Code.

Wade

On Nov 7, 2016 5:43 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message