Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE
On 2017-09-19 06:16, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: Many thanks for all these details. Two things jump out at me: 1. "those NOTICE and LICENSE files *only* refer and apply to what has been checked into the (that!) git/subversion source tree, *nothing else*. So no references to 3rd party dependencies which are pulled in at build time!" That's very interesting and it means that the NOTICE and LICENSE will be very short and sweet -- i.e., the only license will be Apache, since all the source files will be relicensed to Apache. Everything else has been removed prior to the donation, i.e., everything that did not belong to Oracle, anything that has been licensed to anyone other than Oracle, has been removed prior to the donation. Yes, we need to prove that within the incubator and document how we prove that. However, I believe based on having gone through the donation process from the Oracle side, that the only license of the source tree is Apache. If, and as long as that is the case, then yes. But if/when files need to be checked in which come with additional attribution (notice), or with additional copyright/license requirements, then the root LICENSE and NOTICE file need to cover those. Common examples I've seen include 3rd party images, (java)scripts, etc. which for all practical purposes need to at the source level (in git). As long as those have a compatible license, that is fine, as long as they are properly marked/referred to in the NOTICE and/or LICENSE file(s). What does this mean for dependencies pulled in at build time? I.e., can they then be licensed in any way at all -- i.e., where are the rules/guidelines for dependencies pulled in at build time? For dependencies used only *during the build (not packaged/distributed/released nor checked in) you simply don't have to worry about. 2. "NOTICE and LICENSE files *must* be provided in the root of *each* package or distribution, or a practical/common equivalent thereof (e.g. in a jar-file these should go under META-INF/)" I had assumed there is one NOTICE and one LICENSE file, in the root of the repo. From the above, there could be hundreds, i.e., for each package, it would seem. Can you point to somewhere as a reference point for that, e.g., a project where this is done? It sounds to me like we're going to have hundreds of NOTICE and LICENSE files in Apache NetBeans? Could be :-) But I don't think it will need to be that excessive. To clarify one thing first: I've probably put you on the wrong foot with using the term 'package'. I did not mean package as in Java package, but more generically something packaged for distribution, e.g. zip, tar.gz, jar, war, nbm, etc. files. So probably better just ignore the word 'package' in my earlier reply. But each and every 'artifact' distributed may indeed need a different NOTICE and LICENSE file, but only if it contents require that. For example for simple jar files, just packaging the compiled java classes, the standard NOTICE and LICENSE files are fine. And for maven based projects you typically don't need to check in each and every NOTICE and LICENSE file for jar or war files but instead have these added/merged at build time using the maven-remote-resources-plugin [1], optionally providing only the fragment to be appended (under src/main/appended-resources/META-INF). For other/custom distributions, like binary .tar.gz or .nbm files you might need to maintain their NOTICE and LICENSE files manually. I assume there are ant scripts/tasks which can automate things similarly like with maven, but I'm not familiar with ant based projects, so maybe one of the other mentors or experienced ASF committers here can chime in. A (maven) project I've recently helped mentor through the incubator having a fairly complex set of NOTICE and LICENSE file requirements is asterixdb [2]. Their git master tree currently contains 9 NOTICE and 14 LICENSE files in total if I checked them correctly. Ate [1] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin/usage.html [2] https://github.com/apache/asterixdb Thanks, Geertjan On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Ate Douma wrote: On 2017-09-16 08:28, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: Hi all, Created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57. Trying to find an Apache project to use as reference point, looked around a bit, and Apache Spark seems to be complex enough in terms of its dependencies to follow: https://github.com/apache/spark I.e., there's a folder in the above named "licenses": https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/licenses Should such a folder be created in https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans? And then, reference those licenses in the LICENSE file: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/LICENSE And also a NOTICE file should be created, like this one: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE Is that the correct approach and should anything else be considered? Warning TL;DR; ahead, but please hang on anyway
Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE
So far, when I was thinking of this, my thoughts regarding external libraries were like this: AFAIK, currently, every external library is expected to have a "-license.txt" file attached (with the license of the given library), and the build is then merging them into a single file for the given build output. I think we could enhance this with adding a "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to produce a composite LICENSE and NOTICE files based on data from modules that are being built into the given binary. Hopefully, this can be extended to NBMs as well. I hope that if a convenience binary contains many jars, it is OK to have only one LICENCE and NOTICE at the top, and not in every jar in the distribution (right?). Jan On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Ate Douma wrote: > On 2017-09-19 06:16, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > >> Many thanks for all these details. Two things jump out at me: >> >> 1. "those NOTICE and LICENSE files *only* refer and apply to what has been >> checked into the (that!) git/subversion source tree, *nothing else*. So no >> references to 3rd party dependencies which are pulled in at build time!" >> >> That's very interesting and it means that the NOTICE and LICENSE will be >> very short and sweet -- i.e., the only license will be Apache, since all >> the source files will be relicensed to Apache. Everything else has been >> removed prior to the donation, i.e., everything that did not belong to >> Oracle, anything that has been licensed to anyone other than Oracle, has >> been removed prior to the donation. Yes, we need to prove that within the >> incubator and document how we prove that. However, I believe based on >> having gone through the donation process from the Oracle side, that the >> only license of the source tree is Apache. >> > > If, and as long as that is the case, then yes. > But if/when files need to be checked in which come with additional > attribution > (notice), or with additional copyright/license requirements, then the root > LICENSE and NOTICE file need to cover those. Common examples I've seen > include > 3rd party images, (java)scripts, etc. which for all practical purposes > need to > at the source level (in git). As long as those have a compatible license, > that > is fine, as long as they are properly marked/referred to in the NOTICE > and/or > LICENSE file(s). > > >> What does this mean for dependencies pulled in at build time? I.e., can >> they then be licensed in any way at all -- i.e., where are the >> rules/guidelines for dependencies pulled in at build time? >> > For dependencies used only *during the build (not > packaged/distributed/released > nor checked in) you simply don't have to worry about. > > >> 2. "NOTICE and LICENSE files *must* be provided in the root of *each* >> package or distribution, or a practical/common equivalent thereof (e.g. in >> a jar-file these should go under META-INF/)" >> >> I had assumed there is one NOTICE and one LICENSE file, in the root of the >> repo. From the above, there could be hundreds, i.e., for each package, it >> would seem. Can you point to somewhere as a reference point for that, >> e.g., >> a project where this is done? It sounds to me like we're going to have >> hundreds of NOTICE and LICENSE files in Apache NetBeans? >> > > Could be :-) But I don't think it will need to be that excessive. > > To clarify one thing first: I've probably put you on the wrong foot with > using > the term 'package'. I did not mean package as in Java package, but more > generically something packaged for distribution, e.g. zip, tar.gz, jar, > war, > nbm, etc. files. > So probably better just ignore the word 'package' in my earlier reply. > > But each and every 'artifact' distributed may indeed need a different > NOTICE > and LICENSE file, but only if it contents require that. > For example for simple jar files, just packaging the compiled java > classes, the > standard NOTICE and LICENSE files are fine. > > And for maven based projects you typically don't need to check in each and > every > NOTICE and LICENSE file for jar or war files but instead have these > added/merged > at build time using the maven-remote-resources-plugin [1], optionally > providing > only the fragment to be appended (under src/main/appended-resources/ME > TA-INF). > > For other/custom distributions, like binary .tar.gz or .nbm files you > might need > to maintain their NOTICE and LICENSE files manually. > > I assume there are ant scripts/tasks which can automate things similarly > like > with maven, but I'm not familiar with ant based projects, so maybe one of > the > other mentors or experienced ASF committers here can chime in. > > A (maven) project I've recently helped mentor through the incubator having > a > fairly complex set of NOTICE and LICENSE file requirements is asterixdb > [2]. > Their git master tree currently contains 9 NOTICE and 14 LICENSE files in > total > if I checked them correctly. > > Ate > > [1] http://maven.apac
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
I can try to categorize the files a little, but I was hoping we could switch to using Rat to do the checks (after the bulk of the changes are done). So if e.g. the META-INF files would be OK to not have a header, we could simply exclude them in the Rat configuration, and they would be ignored (but the configuration is/will be in git, so easy to review). As a side note, some files in the repository (typically samples) are using 3-clause (if I get that correctly) BSD license currently, e.g.: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=blob;f=apisupport.feedreader/feedreader-suite/FeedReader/src/org/netbeans/feedreader/BrowserTopComponent.java;h=6d0a0c533a9dfa9ed81d3f4349e352d1fb49b128;hb=HEAD My question is what (if anything) we need to do about these. Thanks, Jan On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Does the above make sense, i.e., I'm suggesting a few ways to finetune the > results a bit further -- and are there other ideas for finetuning, i.e., > trying to somehow incorporate those 14,651 files, so we can minimize the > manual checking we'll need to do? > > Thanks, > > Gj > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Great, I've tried it, works well. > > > > In the report, there's a list of 14,651 files under the heading "Files > > without CDDL (14651)". > > > > Could a distinction be made between those that have a license (i.e., some > > license other than CDDL) and those that do not have a license at all? > > > > I also think that it would be nice that after that split, i.e., between > > those with/without a license, that everything is sorted based on file > type, > > so we can easily distinguish those in the lists that are 'form' files, > > 'png' files, etc, for each of these two categories. > > > > I think also that anything within META-INF does not have any "degree of > > creativity", i.e, these are simply registration files for implementations > > of APIs. Could you provide the number of these, for this page, where I'm > > trying to keep a record of all the file types that are a special case of > > some kind: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ > > NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition+Process > > > > Thanks a lot, and any feedback from anyone is welcome, > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I've uploaded an updated version of the tool - fixing a bug in rewriting > >> headers of bundle files (where it was deleting one line after the > header, > >> reported by Geertjan offline), making it a little bit more strict > >> (currently rewrites 29474 files), adding support for bat files, and > adding > >> ability to dump a file with statistics and changed/not changed files. > >> > >> I guess after the bulk update of these headers is done, and > LICENSE&NOTICE > >> is added, we could start a usual development? (Continuing with reviewing > >> the Rat report concurrently?) > >> > >> Could please someone overview the regexp here: > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBean > >> s+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-Toolforanalyz > >> ingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders > >> > >> to see if it is OK to write such headers? Seems OK to me personally, > but I > >> think having feedback from someone more experienced would be helpful. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Jan > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I've used the tool, it's really great, not only analyzes but also > >> actually > >> > changes the licenses, 29,496 of 44,324: > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > >> > NetBeans+Transition+Process > >> > > >> > Could the tool be tuned to list all the files that are not in the > >> 29,496? > >> > > >> > I have updated the table in the link above to list all the problematic > >> file > >> > types, i.e., those that are not licensed. > >> > > >> > Would be great to identify anything else that is not part of the > 29,496 > >> > that can automatically be relicensed. > >> > > >> > Gj > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > >> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Agree completely. > >> > > > >> > > Gj > >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jan Lahoda > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > >> > >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > I think we also need to fill out the "Relicensing of > >> > incubator-netbeans" > >> > >> > table on the page > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > >> > >> > NetBeans+Transition+Process, > >> > >> > i.e., with the various file types in a column, related numbers, > >> and in > >> > >> each > >> > >> > case what the problems are/could be, so that we can get a good > >> view, > >>
Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]
> As a side note, some files in the repository (typically samples) are using > 3-clause (if I get that correctly) BSD license Last time this was a talking point you couldn't tweak the installer without changing the source code that was under the standard CDDL + GPL w/ CPE license. So each custom installer was a derivative work. Using BSD for samples and such was a very good change. I'm not really sure if Apache is OK with BSD samples. Then again, not sure if the Apache license would be a blocking point anymore as it's much more commercial friendly. --emi On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > I can try to categorize the files a little, but I was hoping we could > switch to using Rat to do the checks (after the bulk of the changes are > done). So if e.g. the META-INF files would be OK to not have a header, we > could simply exclude them in the Rat configuration, and they would be > ignored (but the configuration is/will be in git, so easy to review). > > As a side note, some files in the repository (typically samples) are using > 3-clause (if I get that correctly) BSD license currently, e.g.: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=blob;f=apisupport.feedreader/feedreader-suite/FeedReader/src/org/netbeans/feedreader/BrowserTopComponent.java;h=6d0a0c533a9dfa9ed81d3f4349e352d1fb49b128;hb=HEAD > > My question is what (if anything) we need to do about these. > > Thanks, > Jan > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Does the above make sense, i.e., I'm suggesting a few ways to finetune the >> results a bit further -- and are there other ideas for finetuning, i.e., >> trying to somehow incorporate those 14,651 files, so we can minimize the >> manual checking we'll need to do? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gj >> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > Great, I've tried it, works well. >> > >> > In the report, there's a list of 14,651 files under the heading "Files >> > without CDDL (14651)". >> > >> > Could a distinction be made between those that have a license (i.e., some >> > license other than CDDL) and those that do not have a license at all? >> > >> > I also think that it would be nice that after that split, i.e., between >> > those with/without a license, that everything is sorted based on file >> type, >> > so we can easily distinguish those in the lists that are 'form' files, >> > 'png' files, etc, for each of these two categories. >> > >> > I think also that anything within META-INF does not have any "degree of >> > creativity", i.e, these are simply registration files for implementations >> > of APIs. Could you provide the number of these, for this page, where I'm >> > trying to keep a record of all the file types that are a special case of >> > some kind: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ >> > NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition+Process >> > >> > Thanks a lot, and any feedback from anyone is welcome, >> > >> > Gj >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I've uploaded an updated version of the tool - fixing a bug in rewriting >> >> headers of bundle files (where it was deleting one line after the >> header, >> >> reported by Geertjan offline), making it a little bit more strict >> >> (currently rewrites 29474 files), adding support for bat files, and >> adding >> >> ability to dump a file with statistics and changed/not changed files. >> >> >> >> I guess after the bulk update of these headers is done, and >> LICENSE&NOTICE >> >> is added, we could start a usual development? (Continuing with reviewing >> >> the Rat report concurrently?) >> >> >> >> Could please someone overview the regexp here: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBean >> >> s+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-Toolforanalyz >> >> ingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders >> >> >> >> to see if it is OK to write such headers? Seems OK to me personally, >> but I >> >> think having feedback from someone more experienced would be helpful. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jan >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < >> >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I've used the tool, it's really great, not only analyzes but also >> >> actually >> >> > changes the licenses, 29,496 of 44,324: >> >> > >> >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ >> >> > NetBeans+Transition+Process >> >> > >> >> > Could the tool be tuned to list all the files that are not in the >> >> 29,496? >> >> > >> >> > I have updated the table in the link above to list all the problematic >> >> file >> >> > types, i.e., those that are not licensed. >> >> > >> >> > Would be great to identify anything else that is not part of the >> 29,496 >> >> > that can automatically be relicensed. >> >> > >> >> > Gj >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Geert
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans pull request #2: Allow custom authenticator
Github user phansson commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/2#discussion_r139614856
--- Diff: o.n.core/src/org/netbeans/core/NbAuthenticator.java ---
@@ -71,7 +74,19 @@ private NbAuthenticator() {
static void install() {
if (Boolean.valueOf(NbBundle.getMessage(GuiRunLevel.class,
"USE_Authentication"))) {
-setDefault(new NbAuthenticator());
+// Look for custom authenticator
+Authenticator authenticator =
Lookup.getDefault().lookup(Authenticator.class);
+if (authenticator == null) {
+authenticator = new NbAuthenticator();
+}
+if (authenticator.getClass().equals(NbAuthenticator.class)) {
--- End diff --
I can can think of a dozen reason why you might want to override the
Authenticator on a *existing* application, i.e. use of Plugin. It is actually
quite difficult to design an Authenticator which fits everyone's taste. For
example imagine you are on a site where you have an alternative way that you
can obtain credentials.
---
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
Sounds like a plan -- I'll use the tool to convert the licenses to Apache, push that to Git, and then we'll use Rat to narrow down the remainder. How does that sound to everyone? Gj On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 08:50, Jan Lahoda wrote: > I can try to categorize the files a little, but I was hoping we could > switch to using Rat to do the checks (after the bulk of the changes are > done). So if e.g. the META-INF files would be OK to not have a header, we > could simply exclude them in the Rat configuration, and they would be > ignored (but the configuration is/will be in git, so easy to review). > > As a side note, some files in the repository (typically samples) are using > 3-clause (if I get that correctly) BSD license currently, e.g.: > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=blob;f=apisupport.feedreader/feedreader-suite/FeedReader/src/org/netbeans/feedreader/BrowserTopComponent.java;h=6d0a0c533a9dfa9ed81d3f4349e352d1fb49b128;hb=HEAD > > My question is what (if anything) we need to do about these. > > Thanks, > Jan > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Does the above make sense, i.e., I'm suggesting a few ways to finetune > the > > results a bit further -- and are there other ideas for finetuning, i.e., > > trying to somehow incorporate those 14,651 files, so we can minimize the > > manual checking we'll need to do? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gj > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > Great, I've tried it, works well. > > > > > > In the report, there's a list of 14,651 files under the heading "Files > > > without CDDL (14651)". > > > > > > Could a distinction be made between those that have a license (i.e., > some > > > license other than CDDL) and those that do not have a license at all? > > > > > > I also think that it would be nice that after that split, i.e., between > > > those with/without a license, that everything is sorted based on file > > type, > > > so we can easily distinguish those in the lists that are 'form' files, > > > 'png' files, etc, for each of these two categories. > > > > > > I think also that anything within META-INF does not have any "degree of > > > creativity", i.e, these are simply registration files for > implementations > > > of APIs. Could you provide the number of these, for this page, where > I'm > > > trying to keep a record of all the file types that are a special case > of > > > some kind: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ > > > NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition+Process > > > > > > Thanks a lot, and any feedback from anyone is welcome, > > > > > > Gj > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> I've uploaded an updated version of the tool - fixing a bug in > rewriting > > >> headers of bundle files (where it was deleting one line after the > > header, > > >> reported by Geertjan offline), making it a little bit more strict > > >> (currently rewrites 29474 files), adding support for bat files, and > > adding > > >> ability to dump a file with statistics and changed/not changed files. > > >> > > >> I guess after the bulk update of these headers is done, and > > LICENSE&NOTICE > > >> is added, we could start a usual development? (Continuing with > reviewing > > >> the Rat report concurrently?) > > >> > > >> Could please someone overview the regexp here: > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBean > > >> s+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-Toolforanalyz > > >> ingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders > > >> > > >> to see if it is OK to write such headers? Seems OK to me personally, > > but I > > >> think having feedback from someone more experienced would be helpful. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jan > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I've used the tool, it's really great, not only analyzes but also > > >> actually > > >> > changes the licenses, 29,496 of 44,324: > > >> > > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > > >> > NetBeans+Transition+Process > > >> > > > >> > Could the tool be tuned to list all the files that are not in the > > >> 29,496? > > >> > > > >> > I have updated the table in the link above to list all the > problematic > > >> file > > >> > types, i.e., those that are not licensed. > > >> > > > >> > Would be great to identify anything else that is not part of the > > 29,496 > > >> > that can automatically be relicensed. > > >> > > > >> > Gj > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > >> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Agree completely. > > >> > > > > >> > > Gj > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jan Lahoda > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Geertjan Wiele
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
PS: re the samples, I propse we remove the NetBeans Platform samples, e.g., FeedReader. These samples are old and include code and approaches that one wouldn't use anymore, e.g., TopComponents manually registered in layer instead of via annotations. We can recreate some samples easily from scratch, without various 3rd party dependencies as is now the case. Gj On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 11:59, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Sounds like a plan -- I'll use the tool to convert the licenses to Apache, > push that to Git, and then we'll use Rat to narrow down the remainder. > > How does that sound to everyone? > > Gj > > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 08:50, Jan Lahoda wrote: > >> I can try to categorize the files a little, but I was hoping we could >> switch to using Rat to do the checks (after the bulk of the changes are >> done). So if e.g. the META-INF files would be OK to not have a header, we >> could simply exclude them in the Rat configuration, and they would be >> ignored (but the configuration is/will be in git, so easy to review). >> >> As a side note, some files in the repository (typically samples) are using >> 3-clause (if I get that correctly) BSD license currently, e.g.: >> >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=blob;f=apisupport.feedreader/feedreader-suite/FeedReader/src/org/netbeans/feedreader/BrowserTopComponent.java;h=6d0a0c533a9dfa9ed81d3f4349e352d1fb49b128;hb=HEAD >> >> My question is what (if anything) we need to do about these. >> >> Thanks, >> Jan >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > Does the above make sense, i.e., I'm suggesting a few ways to finetune >> the >> > results a bit further -- and are there other ideas for finetuning, i.e., >> > trying to somehow incorporate those 14,651 files, so we can minimize the >> > manual checking we'll need to do? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Gj >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < >> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Great, I've tried it, works well. >> > > >> > > In the report, there's a list of 14,651 files under the heading "Files >> > > without CDDL (14651)". >> > > >> > > Could a distinction be made between those that have a license (i.e., >> some >> > > license other than CDDL) and those that do not have a license at all? >> > > >> > > I also think that it would be nice that after that split, i.e., >> between >> > > those with/without a license, that everything is sorted based on file >> > type, >> > > so we can easily distinguish those in the lists that are 'form' files, >> > > 'png' files, etc, for each of these two categories. >> > > >> > > I think also that anything within META-INF does not have any "degree >> of >> > > creativity", i.e, these are simply registration files for >> implementations >> > > of APIs. Could you provide the number of these, for this page, where >> I'm >> > > trying to keep a record of all the file types that are a special case >> of >> > > some kind: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ >> > > NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition+Process >> > > >> > > Thanks a lot, and any feedback from anyone is welcome, >> > > >> > > Gj >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: >> > > >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> I've uploaded an updated version of the tool - fixing a bug in >> rewriting >> > >> headers of bundle files (where it was deleting one line after the >> > header, >> > >> reported by Geertjan offline), making it a little bit more strict >> > >> (currently rewrites 29474 files), adding support for bat files, and >> > adding >> > >> ability to dump a file with statistics and changed/not changed files. >> > >> >> > >> I guess after the bulk update of these headers is done, and >> > LICENSE&NOTICE >> > >> is added, we could start a usual development? (Continuing with >> reviewing >> > >> the Rat report concurrently?) >> > >> >> > >> Could please someone overview the regexp here: >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBean >> > >> s+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-Toolforanalyz >> > >> ingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders >> > >> >> > >> to see if it is OK to write such headers? Seems OK to me personally, >> > but I >> > >> think having feedback from someone more experienced would be helpful. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> Jan >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < >> > >> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > I've used the tool, it's really great, not only analyzes but also >> > >> actually >> > >> > changes the licenses, 29,496 of 44,324: >> > >> > >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ >> > >> > NetBeans+Transition+Process >> > >> > >> > >> > Could the tool be tuned to list all the files that are not in the >> > >> 29,496? >> > >> > >> > >> > I have updated the table in the link above t
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
On úterý 19. září 2017 11:33:03 CEST Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > PS: re the samples, I propse we remove the NetBeans Platform samples, e.g., > FeedReader. These samples are old and include code and approaches that one > wouldn't use anymore, e.g., TopComponents manually registered in layer > instead of via annotations. We can recreate some samples easily from > scratch, without various 3rd party dependencies as is now the case. ₊1 -jt
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...
Github user tusharvjoshi commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1 I verified the steps provided in JIRA ticket as follows: 1. Open any document what you want 2. Hit ctrl + shift + h to split the document horizontally 3. Hit ctrl + shift + v to split the document vetically 4. Hit ctrl + shift + c to clear split the document 5. Play around of hitting randomly the shortcuts As I am working on macOS the shortcuts I had to use were comm + ctrl + shift + h, comm + ctrl + shift + v and comm + ctrl + shift + c I confirm the working of these shortcuts as explained in the steps. Usually when we need keyboard shortcuts we also add Menu options for the actions, can we apply menu options for these actions also? ---
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
Hi, On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool... You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a specific "tools" repository. -Bertrand
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
Good idea. Can you do this, Jan? Gj On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 14:25, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool... > > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a > specific "tools" repository. > > -Bertrand >
Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]
Hi, On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Emilian Bold wrote: >> ...some files in the repository (typically samples) are using 3-clause (if I >> get that correctly) BSD license... If those files have been donated to Apache they can be relicensed, and IMO they should, in order to simplify things. -Bertrand
Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE
Hi, On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > ...I think we could enhance this with adding a > "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to produce a > composite LICENSE and NOTICE files based on data from modules that are > being built into the given binary... Note that NOTICE must be kept minimal, i.e. only include notices that are *required*. Also, the composite notice/license must be built when preparing a release, which is source code - so not only when building binaries. (haven't read the rest of this thread so far, just saw this) -Bertrand
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
On úterý 19. září 2017 15:24:53 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool... > > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a > specific "tools" repository. We don't have tools repository as far as I know. -jt
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
Could it be a subfolder in this incubator-netbeans? Or a new repo since the tool will be useful for other NetBeans repos too: incubator-netbeans-tools. There may be more scripts and things we'll be needing. Gj On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 15:08, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > On úterý 19. září 2017 15:24:53 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool... > > > > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a > > specific "tools" repository. > > We don't have tools repository as far as I know. > -jt > > >
Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git
Hi Bertrand, The tool is currently a zip attached to the wiki - but the zip contains a git repository, so no history is lost. I just tried to create a new repository (incubator-netbeans-tools) using: https://reporeq.apache.org/ but it seems I cannot create such a repository. Aside for this, any comments on the license headers pattern that could be replaced? More details here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-ToolforanalyzingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders Thanks, Jan On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool... > > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a > specific "tools" repository. > > -Bertrand >
Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> > ...I think we could enhance this with adding a
> > "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to
> produce a
> > composite LICENSE and NOTICE files based on data from modules that are
> > being built into the given binary...
>
> Note that NOTICE must be kept minimal, i.e. only include notices that
> are *required*.
>
So, if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
subset, right?
Jan
>
> Also, the composite notice/license must be built when preparing a
> release, which is source code - so not only when building binaries.
>
> (haven't read the rest of this thread so far, just saw this)
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE
I believe that's correct based on the comments in this thread.
Gj
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 at 12:10, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> > > ...I think we could enhance this with adding a
> > > "-notice.txt" attached to each library and adjusting the build to
> > produce a
> > > composite LICENSE and NOTICE files based on data from modules that are
> > > being built into the given binary...
> >
> > Note that NOTICE must be kept minimal, i.e. only include notices that
> > are *required*.
> >
>
> So, if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
> for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
> subset, right?
>
> Jan
>
>
> >
> > Also, the composite notice/license must be built when preparing a
> > release, which is source code - so not only when building binaries.
> >
>
> > (haven't read the rest of this thread so far, just saw this)
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
>
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...
Github user jlahoda commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1 Chris, as was discussed elsewhere, the patches change line endings to Windows line endings (CRLF), and so look like deletion and addition of each line in the file (including the license headers, which I suppose you didn't want to change). Please fix this, ensuring the patch is using the just "LF" as line endings, and is only changing what should/needs to be changed. This is to keep the history clean, and to aid reviews. I'd also suggest to squash the commits and rebase, so that there's only one commit merged when this is being merged. Thanks. ---
