Mailing-List: contact dev-help@netbeans.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3969CDCE-BF6A-4119-8E0B-FE0D4045073A@gmail.com>
References: <81acdcc2-996e-605c-8ddb-50107bdcd9f1@shanecurcuru.org>
 <CACkjAxSPgk0OOWTEGOfX3A+JPd=-pdYVzYubYMJ5Un9_SAm+yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF8A2526-B07F-49D6-92D8-E3C03470C545@gmail.com> <CAOzQtikwDMfANsDMTvDhXrdfBBJS-RBCL1KsjZH3oCP3rU-6OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACkjAxQQXL6WwCcitkCLRPL-PQAMGAh=9ODXpjZ5po8YJzNvOA@mail.gmail.com> <3969CDCE-BF6A-4119-8E0B-FE0D4045073A@gmail.com>
From: Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 00:13:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CACkjAxQhnJKrvh+MOdQqwzXK1rjwdfDcDkjiDfVcJ7Cx9ikV0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to
 include/exclude in code donation to Apache)
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141078460dfbe0540be2a31
archived-at: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 23:13:18 -0000

--001a1141078460dfbe0540be2a31
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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+Javascrip=
t,
> 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=E2=80=99t forg=
et to
> advertise that Java is a =E2=80=9Cfirst class citizen=E2=80=9D in the Net=
beans 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 yo=
u
> >> 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, eve=
n
> >> 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 fir=
st
> >>> and foremost, as when I go to the Downloads[1] page 3 of the 6
> >>> download-able packages don=E2=80=99t 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 Netbean=
s?
> >>>
> >>> 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 mea=
ns
> >> 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 mea=
ns
> >> no
> >>>>> licensing surprises" side.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1- If I want a great IDE where I can edit my C, JavaScript, PHP, HT=
ML
> >>>>> 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, apparent=
ly
> >>>>> (as a new user) I need this nb-javac module from somewhere else whi=
ch
> >>>>> 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 the=
y
> >>>>> 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 the=
ir
> >>>>> own Apache-licensed Java programs for redistribution would never ne=
ed
> >> 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/bui=
ld
> >> my
> >>>>> code doesn't affect the license I can use on the code I'm writing i=
n
> >>>>> 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 co=
de
> >>>>> (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
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

--001a1141078460dfbe0540be2a31--