Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Hi, On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Neil C Smith wrote: > ...Take > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/apisupport.wizards/src/org/netbeans/modules/apisupport/project/ui/wizard/wizard/instantiatingIterator.javx Ok - IIUC that's a template

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:26 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Neil C Smith > wrote: > > ...I assume we wouldn't want the output of > > them to be under any kind of license?... > > As a podling, NetBeans

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

If in NetBeans IDE the user does New/Java Class, then (I think) this template will be instantiated:

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Hi, On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:58 AM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emilian Bold > wrote: > > ...But it's a bit silly no? Any new project based on an Apache sample > would have to post a notice about the Apache > >

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emilian Bold wrote: > Pe 21 sept. 2017, la 09:51, Bertrand Delacretaz a > scris: >> ...Code produced by the ASF must use the Apache License, so that's not an >> option here... > ...But it's a bit silly no? Any new

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

But it's a bit silly no? Any new project based on an Apache sample would have to post a notice about the Apache license and include a copy of the license. --emi Pe 21 sept. 2017, la 09:51, Bertrand Delacretaz a scris: > Hi, > >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM,

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Hi, On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > ...My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing > thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter. > Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public > Domain...

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Thanks, it was a small fun clean up task. Gj On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Emilian Bold wrote: > Well, that was very effective! > > My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing > thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter. > > Since it's

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Well, that was very effective! My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter. Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public Domain. Of course, everybody treats sample code as Public Domain, but

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

OK, done, including references in various supporting files, and did a build and run to check everything still works and resolved the issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62 Gj On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Those

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

Those specific files, i.e., the samples relating to the NetBeans Platform (FeedReader, PaintApp, OSGIDemo and maybe another one or two) should simply be deleted, they're old and out of date and it would simplify things simply not having them. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62 I'm

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

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