Shouldn't somebody from Apache legal settle this? My guess is that an explicit list is better than something vague.
For example, what happens when netbeans.org is restructured -- how can ASF claim that something is covered by the code granted or not? --emi On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > That would work for me but playing the devil's advocate I assume you > > could stretch that to mean any NetBeans book? ;-) > > > > Maybe adding "that is currently distributed via the netbeans.org > > domain" would fix that? > > > Good point. If that indeed fixes it, we could do it like that. > > Gj > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Geertjan Wielenga > > <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > ...could we respond to "List of software and other intellectual > > > property covered by this agreement" in the Software Grant Agreement > with > > > the following words: > > > > > > "NetBeans: any source code, object code, patch, tool, sample, graphic, > > > specification, manual, documentation, or any other material." ... > > > > That would work for me but playing the devil's advocate I assume you > > could stretch that to mean any NetBeans book? ;-) > > > > Maybe adding "that is currently distributed via the netbeans.org > > domain" would fix that? > > > > -Bertrand > > >
