On Fri, 31 May 2019, 09:40 Geertjan Wielenga, <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, based on this, if AdoptOpenJDK make no changes at all, but simply aim > to redistribute the same Apache NetBeans that we release here, they can use > the 'Apache NetBeans' name. However, they would need to redistribute the > binary that we produce in a release, i.e., they couldn't go to the GitHub > repo, do a clone, and then create some subset of it to produce their own > binary -- since that binary could, for example, potentially, provide a > distribution that only contains HTML features, theoretically. They could > not call that Apache NetBeans, even though they haven't modified the > sources in any way? > Given Apache only officially makes source releases, I don't think we need to (or should) enforce the use of our binaries, just the release sources / tag. Of course, without reproducible builds can we actually prove that? Still, building from source will be a requirement for many uses, such as Linux distros. It's an interesting question then if people configure the build to just build the HTML support should we allow that? It is still the unmodified released source, so shouldn't be an issue, although we might require some sort of labelling that it's cut down? I think it would be a good thing to have editions like that without necessarily having to do them all ourselves. Best wishes, Neil >
