Hi all, Again, I believe that you could distribute from Adopt with a JDK bundled. So maybe this is a case where using a 3rd party makes sense.
Kind regards, Kirk > On Nov 28, 2019, at 8:45 AM, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca> wrote: > > I apologize if I misunderstood but the conversation appeared to me, likely > incorrectly, to go beyond just bundling a Java JDK. The installers that are > already there, are they downloading a JDK if one is not present? Requiring a > separate install of Java is the status quo. If we could make that part of the > NetBeans installer then we should an we should pursue an exemption to Apache > policies if required. > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Geertjan Wielenga <geert...@apache.org> > Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM > To: dev@netbeans.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process leave > that work to Third Party Distributors > > You’re aware that we’re already distributing an installer, right? And that > that is not what we’re talking about? > > We’re talking about the fact that we can’t bundle the JDK with that installer > and then distribute that installer from Apache. > > A simple link on our download page to OpenBeans and AdoptOpenJDK and any > other distributor is all we need, for the installers of NetBeans that bundle > the JDK. > > Gj > > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:20, Kenneth Fogel <kfo...@dawsoncollege.qc.ca> > wrote: > >> This is a bad idea. I personally feel that an installer is mandatory. >> Eclipse and IntelliJ have installers for all platforms. Leaving it to >> third parties will mean that we have no oversight on the quality and >> ease of use of the installer. Only distributing a zip file implies >> that skills beyond learning to code with NetBeans will be required. We >> can pretty much write off the education sector if there is no >> installer. Sorry to be harsh but this is a line I believe we must not cross. >> >> It is unfortunates, as someone has pointed out, that Apache is not end >> user friendly but that is no excuse. NetBeans is an end user program >> and must be as easy to install as any other IDE and have an official >> installer. >> >> Ken >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Laszlo Kishalmi <laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com> >> Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM >> To: Apache NetBeans <dev@netbeans.apache.org> >> Subject: [DISCUSS] Dropping Installers from the Release Process leave >> that work to Third Party Distributors >> >> 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/a3e6051130e18aae3f7a81c562a63ac96 >> d3a3a07d4bcbee074392d59@%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E >> >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/489f17e30d9125ee48e2d78dc36572db6 >> a3f5d6474f492458e0db151@%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 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
