On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shan Curcuru wrote:
> As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a > *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means no > licensing surprises" side. 1- Yes. Assuming we resolve other issues that are going to be coming up, i.e., nb-javac is the current hurdle we're focusing on, though there are smaller ones to follow unrelated to this specific legal issue that we're now focused on. [See https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Overview%3A+NetBeans+Structure to predict upcoming legal discussions.] 2- Yes. 3- Yes. 4- Yes. Thanks, and I agree, what we're doing is in sync with the "ASF code means no licensing surprises" side. Gj On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > On 2016-11-06 15:01 (-0500), Geertjan Wielenga > <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 4:59 > PM, Ate Douma wrote: > > > > > Geertjan and others already clarified and are documenting the > modularity of > > > NetBeans [2], with the core NetBeans platform being the only required > part. > > > All other modules (or clusters) being optional. > > > So many users might not need the NetBeans Java cluster. > ...snip... > > As a non-regular NetBeans user, I have a clarifying question from a > *newcomers* perspective that I think will help on the "ASF code means no > licensing surprises" side. > > 1- If I want a great IDE where I can edit my C, JavaScript, PHP, HTML > and other non-Java code, and check it in, build it, etc. - can I > download NetBeans (plus perhaps some other modules) where *all* of the > source code I'm downloading is under a Category A license? > > > 2- If I then want to use NetBeans to edit/build Java code, apparently > (as a new user) I need this nb-javac module from somewhere else which > lets NetBeans the product do "useful stuff" with Oracle's current Java, > correct? > > Java developers today would understand that Oracle's Java platform - > which is widely known and used - has GPL related code in it, so they > should not be surprised when they have to go download nb-javac from > Oracle, nor should they be surprised when the sources for nb-javac are > also licensed under the GPL. Does that make sense? > > > 3- Java developers who want to use NetBeans + nb-javac to build their > own Apache-licensed Java programs for redistribution would never need to > worry about the GPL, because it would be clear as a Java programmer and > regular IDE user that the license of the IDE I'm using to write/build my > code doesn't affect the license I can use on the code I'm writing in > that IDE. Correct? > > > If all three of those are "Yes", then I'm +1 for this solution and +1 > for LEGAL-279. The separation between Apache licensed Netbeans as an > IDE and the underlying tooling integration with the Java compiler > tooling using GPL seems clear, and given any experienced Java developer, > they would not be surprised to see the licensing difference. > > > 4- If I want to extend the editing features in NetBeans for Java code > (which I think you call "Java cluster"?), can I use the Apache license > for patches and redistribution of the NetBeans editor code that displays > the UI, syntax coloring, etc. elements? I.e. is the editor portion > going to be all Apache, and it's just the compiler (when tooling > integration sends code off to do bytecode) that is under GPL? > > - Shane >
