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
Sender: hedhman@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <503a21ef-9158-cb0e-40ee-7c196a33cd43@gmail.com>
References: <CACkjAxQDkUYizoUhnvEd6tct0JSo5MpHCj=kucEwPPHyOaN5Rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL6R17AgP2imA3cxH_SL+-h44g7ocCFOK5HyXc0qaQPZtj4gTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6fffd22c-d6f9-22b0-78ee-c405d8e0d338@gmail.com> <CADmm+KcAEhaiP3AYLSTr9tyz-tyYxvM_ea3jrpLdtnJKvWdoBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACkjAxT06ujL8t_U1xRUBC7sO3EY2ZAV9cATHivM4iOBjd--PA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADmm+KcYXCQvahkB9yoSF9yM2pU-esHFamEmE8DLje0rFToOpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACkjAxTcRMcrxOkSkuhJJt6X9=2zpMwSP0Ut96f9N39dsyJUNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <93b188d2-717b-9099-290e-1177bd91a88c@gmail.com> <CADmm+Kfq0FGFvxasJO8zgg9bmJaWBkydrt+TQDg34KTZ2wfrFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <503a21ef-9158-cb0e-40ee-7c196a33cd43@gmail.com>
From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 09:35:09 +0800
Message-ID: <CADmm+KfbeQAf_hB97V=rQvYApm0Z_N9Sz4UwdTnvdjQfnzNcrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cead0794c6005406fb009
archived-at: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 01:35:36 -0000

--001a113cead0794c6005406fb009
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Emanuel,
you know that the "type of users" isn't part of the Legal aspect. There are
only "downstream users" and doesn't matter if that is you (Java developer),
Google (say an IDE company) or Boeing (separate app). ASF cares about the
principles. There are similar situations from the past.

My point, Geertjan, is that it is *possible* that the Java Editor itself
(not the nb-javac) can not be released under Apache License. That means
development of that will need to be outside of ASF. And from what Wade is
hinting at, a bunch of other components may follow suit from that.

So, it needs to be worked out;
 1. Can Java Editor be released under Apache License. Check with Legal for
that.
 2. If not,
    a. Is it within the scope of the community to find/create a working
replacement for nb-javac?
    b. Or, will Java Editor (and everything depending on it or nb-javac) be
developed outside ASF, and how is that going to work in practice?

I am not asking for answers here and now, just that you all are aware of
this, and that it doesn't come as a big surprise when the first release is
voted down due to legal issues.


Cheers
Niclas


On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Emmanuel L=C3=A9charny <elecharny@gmail.co=
m>
wrote:

>
>
> Le 03/11/16 =C3=A0 15:31, Niclas Hedhman a =C3=A9crit :
> > Again, if the Java Editor depends on nb-javac (and not the other way
> > around), the Java Editor needs clearance from VP Legal (who might need =
to
> > seek advice from Legal Counsel), whether the Java Editor can be license=
d
> as
> > ALv2. I am not sure if there is a precedent in Apache before, but I hav=
e
> > seen FSF express that the CPE is not compatible with GPL for dynamicall=
y
> > linked languages. If the Java Editor will be deemed incompatible with
> ALv2,
> > then that too would need to reside outside ASF, and what would that mea=
n
> > for overall credibility?
> >
> > "Netbeans - An Application Platform from Apache. With optional Add-ons
> for,
> > among many others, editing Java applications..., available from
> third-party
> > sources" doesn't rhyme well, does it?
> > Is Apache Netbeans willing to ship a package that can not contain the
> > central part of a Java IDE? I suspect not... and that is why Legal shou=
ld
> > be consulted.
> Again, I don't think so. First because NetBeans is just a platform, and
> second because who knows if a replacement for nb-javac, under a AL 2.0
> license, will not be proposed in the next coming months ? But more
> important, the reason we don't allow the inclusion of GPL/CPE code is
> different.
>
> The full idea is really to protect those who will repackage the source
> to sell/release it on their own name, so that they can't be fooled :
> they *know* what they are doing because they *have* to pull a third
> party package under an AL 2.0 incompatible license. For end users, like
> you ad me, this is really a no-brainer.
>
>


--=20
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

--001a113cead0794c6005406fb009--