netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven Yi <steve...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:31:50 GMT
+1

I'm all for the single installer with different module download options.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:19 PM, John McDonnell <mcdonnell.john@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 23:13, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> I think the above would actually be a big improvement over the current
>> situation where there are multiple downloads.
>
> +1
>
> A single download would definitely be simpler and this languages/technology choice could
just be an extension of the current plugin mechanism.
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>> On 7 Nov 2016, at 23:13, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Good question and unclear at this point what the solution should be.
>> Personally, wouldn't it be simplest to have one single download (certainly
>> simpler than the current situation) and then the installer asks which
>> languages/technologies you need? If, among others, Java is selected,
>> nb-javac (simply two JAR files, by the way, at the end of the day) would be
>> downloaded and installed.
>>
>> I think the above would actually be a big improvement over the current
>> situation where there are multiple downloads.
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 12:05 AM, John McDonnell <mcdonnell.john@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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