In Apache, everything is online. :-) Right now, the Apache Transition document ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition) appears to be complete [i.e., a few comments received, they have been integrated].
The question now is one of sequence, as discussed in this thread. What will be done when, i.e., in which order. The most important hurdle to cross is the legal/IP/licensing one -- and what I am suggesting is that the code should only be granted when we have worked through the legal/IP/licensing concerns. I.e., we start by making sure we have the source code from Mercurial that we will need, we move that into Apache Git, once the code is in Apache Git, we start examining it very closely and identifying areas that are going to be problematic and bringing those to the surfaces, as well as all the steps related to the source code that we need to work on in one way or another for incubation to succeed. Once we complete the above successfully, i.e., we are 100% confident of success of incubation, we focus on the SGA (Software Grant Agreement), as well as porting tutorials and so on (documentation, features pages, etc) to Apache, since, again, if everything fails for some licensing reason, we'll have wasted our time porting tutorials and documentation and so on. I welcome responses to the above. Gj On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting, I didn't know the grant is online. > > I guess that since the license is non-exclusive it's the equivalent of > Oracle triple-licensing NetBeans 8.2 under the Apache License too. > > > --emi > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Here's what it looks like: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant-template.pdf > > > > It's in the process of being signed right now, it's being worked on right > > now, might take a week or so the way it looks now. > > > > The question remains -- and can someone answer it: once the grant has > been > > signed and handed over to Apache, what happens if for some reason the > > process fails, must Apache then sign a document to grant the code back to > > Oracle? > > > > Gj > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I didn't mean just an empty git repo, I meant the canonical repository > > from > > > which daily builds and releases are made. > > > > > > I believe with this proposal Oracle has agreed to the following: > > > > > > 1. Changing the project license to the Apache license > > > 2. Contributing further changes under the Apache license > > > 3. Following the Apache governance model and > > > 3. Granting code ownership to the Apache Software Foundation. > > > > > > I don't know how a software grant document looks like but I assume > there > > > are articles about 'unwinding'. Oracle legal should talk to Apache > legal > > > and clear this out. > > > > > > It seems to me though that without the code grant incubation hasn't > > really > > > started. I mean, incubation is not about due diligence or legal > > discovery. > > > > > > Still, there is nothing stopping Oracle from following 1, 2 and 3. They > > > could change the license to the Apache license this very week. > > > > > > > > > > > > --emi > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The point is this -- during incubation, we're going to be working on > > > > establishing whether Apache NetBeans can exist or not, from many > > > different > > > > points of view. And, even though we don't believe the process will > > fail, > > > it > > > > would be a problem if Oracle has granted the code to Apache only to > > find > > > > that for some reason Apache NetBeans will not be able to leave the > > > > incubator. Let's say, for example, there's a licensing problem that > > > cannot > > > > be fixed. If the software has already been granted, it would then > need > > to > > > > be 'ungranted' at that stage. That's my concern and why I think the > > code > > > > should only be granted formally, i.e., via the formal SGA document, > > when > > > we > > > > know for sure that incubation will succeed. > > > > > > > > That means that we can work on setting up the Git repo immediately > and, > > > > once we know what we want to move there, we move the source code > there. > > > > Then we start the process of 'scrubbing the code', i.e., checking its > > > > licenses and noting any problems and seeking their solutions. Not > sure > > > how > > > > long this will take, but maybe not too long, a month or so, just a > > > > guesstimate. Once we have worked through the licensing, and we know > for > > > > sure incubation will succeed, we can get the SGA, if we know for sure > > > there > > > > will be no blockers. We did a preliminary investigation of this prior > > to > > > > putting the proposal together, but at this point we'll have done a > > > thorough > > > > analysis. > > > > > > > > Then, once we have the SGA, those who have signed the ICLAs can begin > > > > working on committing code agreed upon by the project in terms of a > > > > commonly drawn up roadmap. So, it's not a question of waiting until > > next > > > > year sometime to start committing, just a question of waiting until > we > > > know > > > > for 100% sure that the process will not have to be unwound before > > > actually > > > > having the code granted from Oracle. > > > > > > > > Does the above make sense? > > > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 1:29 AM, Emilian Bold < > emilian.b...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Migrating the repository over to git and the code grant should > happen > > > in > > > > > 2016. > > > > > > > > > > We have some momentum here but if I have to wait until Summer 2017 > to > > > > > commit using my @apache ID I signed the iCLA 6 months too soon. > > > > > > > > > > Also, it's a premature optimization to change too much the code > > > > repository. > > > > > It seems like a juicy engineering task to split it up, filter it, > > > > whatever. > > > > > But it is pointless. > > > > > > > > > > What's essential first is for work to be possible and to start on > the > > > git > > > > > repo. We could have another goal during the incubation or even > after > > > > > incubation to split the repository. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the unwinding should be your main concern. Code > changes > > > > will > > > > > have to be done regardless of who owns the IP. > > > > > > > > > > As an alternative to this Oracle concern, you could require > > > contributors > > > > to > > > > > have both an iCLA and an OCA, although perhaps the Apache iCLA > might > > be > > > > > sufficient. Apache Legal might intervene and explain things here... > > > > > > > > > > An incubating project must do a major release during incubation. I > > > > believe > > > > > that release will have be the Java 9 release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --emi > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > > > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > An overview of the sequence as far as I understand it. Consider > it > > a > > > > > basic > > > > > > starting point for discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start by assuming we want there to be a NetBeans 9 to be > > > released > > > > > out > > > > > > of Apache, and as a top level project, i.e., outside the > incubator, > > > in > > > > > line > > > > > > with the release of Java 9. > > > > > > > > > > > > That puts us in the middle of next year somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > The most important aspect that needs to be worked through before > > then > > > > is > > > > > > the IP, license hygiene, etc. Before we get to the point where > > we're > > > > > > working on that, we need to actually have one or more Mercurial > > repos > > > > > that > > > > > > we know we want to move. Right now, the NetBeans 9 branch is > being > > > > moved > > > > > > into trunk, once that's done we need to consider whether we > should > > > take > > > > > the > > > > > > NetBeans trunk as our starting point -- and determine other > brances > > > > we'll > > > > > > need. > > > > > > > > > > > > We'll then need to work through the IP issues, i.e., work through > > the > > > > > > incompatible licenses and work out solutions for those. Some > > features > > > > > might > > > > > > be dropped, others can be installed via plugins, either > separately > > or > > > > > > during installation. > > > > > > > > > > > > At the point where we've worked through those licensing issues > and > > > are > > > > > at a > > > > > > stage where we either have temporary exceptions for truly > > problematic > > > > > > areas, while knowing what the ultimate solutions for those will > be, > > > or > > > > we > > > > > > have solved everything, we'll be at the point where Oracle's SGA > > > > > (software > > > > > > grant agreement) can be worked on. > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, based on the above, the SGA would be executed as > > one > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > LAST steps of the incubation period. After all, if we do uncover > > > > > > insurmountable issues during the incubation period, in particular > > in > > > > > > relation to licensing, having executed such a grant too early > would > > > > lead > > > > > to > > > > > > a very difficult unwinding of the process. > > > > > > > > > > > > In parallel to the licensing process described above, since we're > > > > > confident > > > > > > that in one way or another things will work out favorably, we > could > > > > > decide > > > > > > to move the tutorials and other content from netbeans.org to the > > > > website > > > > > > structure, whatever that will be, at Apache, including setting > up a > > > > Wiki > > > > > > structure in our new Confluence environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > Comments to the above -- bring 'em on! > > > > > > > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
