Re: Reminder to subscribe to private@ if you're an initial committer

Hi, On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 7:57 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > ...once your ICLA has been filed with > the foundation, you may subscribe to priv...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org. > ... Thanks John for this reminder - subscribers see below for the current criteria for

Fwd: [jira] [Created] (LEGAL-279) Apache NetBeans optional Java cluster depending on external GPLv2+CPE nb-javac module

FYI Forwarded Message Subject: [jira] [Created] (LEGAL-279) Apache NetBeans optional Java cluster depending on external GPLv2+CPE nb-javac module Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 21:48:00 + (UTC) From: Ate Douma (JIRA) Reply-To: legal-disc...@apache.org To:

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

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

Reminder to subscribe to private@ if you're an initial committer

All, Just as a reminder, if you were invited as an initial committer, that means you're a part of the PPMC. This means once your ICLA has been filed with the foundation, you may subscribe to priv...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org. This is where discussions around new committers occur. John

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

I'm top posting on just the last response in this thread, as I think the discussion is drifting too much and not adding much value nor new insights. And it seems to be building up unnecessary irritations as result. Instead I will try to recap and summarize the current state to break out of the

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

On Nov 6, 2016 5:31 AM, "Neil C Smith" wrote: > > On 6 November 2016 at 02:16, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> > Assuming the answer to my licensing question is no, then I'm > >> > interested in exactly how much nb-javac forks from javac and how > >>

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

On Nov 6, 2016 5:26 AM, "Neil C Smith" wrote. > > What I'm saying about maintainability is that changes in the internals > of OpenJDK have the potential to stop nb-javac from functioning. So, > while we, the NetBeans community, may be able to manage the code on >

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

On Nov 6, 2016 3:59 AM, "Niclas Hedhman" wrote: > > I give up. If you don't see that there is a difference between an operating > system and a JAR file (with the JRE somewhere in the middle), I am not > going to re-re-re-re-re-reiterate the view that we are not lawyers, and if

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

On Nov 6, 2016 5:26 AM, "Neil C Smith" wrote: > > Hi, > > On 5 November 2016 at 19:20, Wade Chandler wrote: > > On Nov 5, 2016 2:00 PM, "Neil C Smith" > > wrote: > >> > > The same would > > be the case with

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

Hi all, for me it seems there are two parts of this discussion: 1. The legal part about GPL+CPE 2. The technical problem of maintaining a javac fork I think 2 is already a problem (a BIG thanks to Jan Lahoda who still keeps this working and even provides branches working with Valhalla...) that

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

On 6 November 2016 at 02:16, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> > Assuming the answer to my licensing question is no, then I'm >> > interested in exactly how much nb-javac forks from javac and how >> > maintainable it is from outside? > > Java (or more precisely, JRE, pre-OpenJDK) was

Re: Optional modules with GPL dependencies (was: What to include/exclude in code donation to Apache)

Hi, On 5 November 2016 at 19:20, Wade Chandler wrote: > On Nov 5, 2016 2:00 PM, "Neil C Smith" > wrote: >>Why I think this >> is different to reliance on almost any other library is the way javac >> uses the internals of the JRE. eg. the