On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:44 PM Emilian Bold <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Which JDK is CoolBeans currently bundling? > > AdoptOpenJDK 11.0.4. > > > NetBeans is simply an Apache project. There's no need to ask what the > > NetBeans position or the NetBeans PMC position is. > > There was a discussion about this without a conclusion. If the PMC > position is that they defer to Apache Legal some sort of FAQ should > mention this. > No. It's the other way around -- if the NetBeans community were to not defer to Apache (and why wouldn't they), that's when there should be a FAQ. Gj > > > This covers this topic: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes > > > > I.e., if you modify an Apache project then you cannot distribute it under > its name. > > Yet Debian is doing a NetBeans fork using the NetBeans trademark. > > >[Niel] At what point does a build turn into a derivative? > > Indeed. > > > [Niel] It would be good to make more of this configurable in our build > scripts > > anyway. Would really like it to be easy for a downstream build to > > pre-include nb-javac and JavaFX if they want to for example. > > Would certainly simplify some things for me. > > > [Geertjan] I'm saying the exact opposite: the world would welcome a > NetBeans installer > that would bundle AdoptOpenJDK. > > But can that installer be called "NetBeans"? If not, I'm already doing > that with CoolBeans. > > > However, that installer cannot be distributed by Apache, since the JDK is > GPL-licensed. > > I'm not talking about distribution, I'm talking about using the > NetBeans trademark. Third parties can take care of distribution. > > What I'm looking for is: > > * transparency: the project having some guidelines about this. A > simple page where you link to > http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#Name-changes is fine > by me, but you can't expect some sort of conclusion to be deduced from > mail archives. > > * enforcement: the PMC showing it takes some proactive steps defending > the brand / trademark. If name changes are mandatory, start enforcing > this rule with obvious trademark infringements, such as Debian. > > --emi > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 1:10 PM Geertjan Wielenga <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Yup, that would be cool. > > > > Gj > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 12:09 PM Neil C Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 2 Nov 2019, 10:56 Geertjan Wielenga, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Seems to be Markus Koschany, I'll contact him. If the distro is > really > > > > different in a significant way, they could call it DebianBeans, > maybe. > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > What would life be if you couldn't rely on Debian to screw up a Java > > > package?! ;-) > > > > > > Not sure if they intend to keep packaging - it's still 10? But this > feels > > > borderline. Modifications to externalize dependencies or control what > > > files/modules are included might be something to allow? OTOH, if that > leads > > > to linking to different versions of dependencies that might not? At > what > > > point does a build turn into a derivative? > > > > > > It would be good to make more of this configurable in our build scripts > > > anyway. Would really like it to be easy for a downstream build to > > > pre-include nb-javac and JavaFX if they want to for example. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Neil > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > >
