That’s what we’re trying to achieve, though it looks unlikely that we’ll win this one.
And in some ways it is better that we are not and cannot bundle the JDK because then the question would be “which JDK” and the answer is not so obvious — it would have more impact for AdoptOpenJDK to provide its own bundle with NetBeans (after all, what’s the point of a JDK without a tool to use it out of the box), etc. And if in addition some PMC members, e.g., Emilian and Neil, make their own JDK+NetBeans available, then we have even more choice — and would be following the Apache Way too. Yes, there are downsides, very easy to enumerate. But every conceivable solution has downsides. Gj On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 17:45, Kenneth Fogel <kfogel@ 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 <[email protected]> > Sent: November 28, 2019 11:30 AM > To: [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > > Sent: November 27, 2019 2:41 PM > > To: Apache NetBeans <[email protected]> > > 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: [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 > > > >
