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
