I would be in favor of continuing as we have been doing -- providing an installer that assumes a JDK is available. Not bundling a JDK is not the end of the world though yes inconvenient and I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Gj On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:41 PM Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > It is a great burden to us to provide the best out-of-the-box install > experience with NetBeans. That would mean, providing an installer with > JDK, nb-javac probably javafx. > > See the threads: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a3e6051130e18aae3f7a81c562a63ac96d3a3a07d4bcbee074392d59@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/489f17e30d9125ee48e2d78dc36572db6a3f5d6474f492458e0db151@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E > > On 11/26/19 9:29 PM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE > > with Apache NetBeans. > > > > There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE: > > > > 1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be > > distributed under Apache license, due to CPE > > 2. CPE only allows other product built on Java to be distributed > > under their own license. > > > > As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct > > (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second > > interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses. > > > > The following viable possibilities were brought up: > > > > 1. We may apply for an exception to the board > > 2. Use some download logic in the installer. > > 3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties. > > > > Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on > > Apache NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few > > distributor for creating installer packages and we limit/drop our > > installer bundle creation in the future. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Laszlo Kishalmi > > > > I do not think that after this discussion we would get the exception > from the board Geertjan might try to bring it up there as well. > > As of me option 2 is questionable. > > Option 3. is a bit hard to say, but if we can't produce proper > installation packages, it would probably better to not create those > packages at all, leave that for others. > > How I imagine that: > > 1. From 11.3 we remove the convenience binaries and installers from > our download page > 2. We would still create, sign and host our nbm-s. > 3. On our download page we have the source package and a section for > third party distributors. > > Well of course this thread is just to start a discussion about this > matter. I know it would hurt the brand, but probably it is better than > produce some sub-optimal installers while other parties can come with > all the bells and whistles. > > Thank you, > > Laszlo Kishalmi >
