You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com> on 2019/11/27 05:29:43 UTC
[SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488,
LEGAL489)
Dear all,
I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE with
Apache NetBeans.
There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE:
1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be
distributed under Apache license, due to CPE
2. CPE only allows other product built on Java to be distributed under
their own license.
As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct
(maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second
interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses.
The following viable possibilities were brought up:
1. We may apply for an exception to the board
2. Use some download logic in the installer.
3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties.
Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for
creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle
creation in the future.
Thank you,
Laszlo Kishalmi
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488, LEGAL489)
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@gmail.com>.
If I may: the OpenJDK is not entirely licensed as GPL+CPE. Only the
Java libraries are, if I understand correctly. The proposal is to
distribute then entire JDK though, which includes GPL code. I think
that is the problem, not the GPL+CPE libraries part.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:29 PM Laszlo Kishalmi
<la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE with Apache NetBeans.
>
> There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE:
>
> OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be distributed under Apache license, due to CPE
> CPE only allows other product built on Java to be distributed under their own license.
>
> As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses.
>
> The following viable possibilities were brought up:
>
> We may apply for an exception to the board
> Use some download logic in the installer.
> Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties.
>
> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle creation in the future.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488, LEGAL489)
Posted by Fantri Fitriani <fa...@gmail.com>.
Pada tanggal Rab, 27 Nov 2019 17.00, Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>
menulis:
> On 27-11-2019 06:29, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
>
> > Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
> > NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for
> > creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle
> > creation in the future.
>
> Shouldn't providing a installer package be open to everyone?
>
> Why do you want to have Apache 'select' and possible implicit endorse
> one or more?
>
> My opinion here is that we should stay passive, and at the most provide
> an open list of installer-package distributors.
>
> Gr. Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488, LEGAL489)
Posted by Fantri Fitriani <fa...@gmail.com>.
Pada tanggal Kam, 28 Nov 2019 04.19, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> menulis:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:00 AM Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org> wrote:
>
>> On 27-11-2019 06:29, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
>>
>> > Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
>> > NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor
>> for
>> > creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle
>> > creation in the future.
>>
>> Shouldn't providing a installer package be open to everyone?
>>
>> Why do you want to have Apache 'select' and possible implicit endorse
>> one or more?
>>
>
> I assume this is based on this e-mail:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201911.mbox/%3CCA%2BULb%2Bts_iTo7-YhUHgZQ-o0wKjLqhXof-eFtOSUbdhGqZCFiQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Specifically, to quote:
> ---
> One idea worth exploring is to spinning up a "canonical" or "go-to"
> downstream binary distribution channel that would not be bound by the
> same adherence to ALv2 but rather just to focus on having a distro
> available under the open source license.
> ---
>
> ("Canonical" and "go-to" definitely sounds like we select.)
>
> But as to why: the reason I assume is simply that we can tell the users
> "If you want a binary Apache NetBeans build, go here.", rather than "If you
> want a binary Apache NetBeans build, use a search engine to find it
> yourself, we are not going to help you." (Where the first is good for the
> community, while the second is obviously bad for the community.)
>
> Jan
>
>
>> My opinion here is that we should stay passive, and at the most provide
>> an open list of installer-package distributors.
>>
>> Gr. Simon
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488, LEGAL489)
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 10:00 AM Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org> wrote:
> On 27-11-2019 06:29, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
>
> > Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
> > NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for
> > creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle
> > creation in the future.
>
> Shouldn't providing a installer package be open to everyone?
>
> Why do you want to have Apache 'select' and possible implicit endorse
> one or more?
>
I assume this is based on this e-mail:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201911.mbox/%3CCA%2BULb%2Bts_iTo7-YhUHgZQ-o0wKjLqhXof-eFtOSUbdhGqZCFiQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Specifically, to quote:
---
One idea worth exploring is to spinning up a "canonical" or "go-to"
downstream binary distribution channel that would not be bound by the
same adherence to ALv2 but rather just to focus on having a distro
available under the open source license.
---
("Canonical" and "go-to" definitely sounds like we select.)
But as to why: the reason I assume is simply that we can tell the users "If
you want a binary Apache NetBeans build, go here.", rather than "If you
want a binary Apache NetBeans build, use a search engine to find it
yourself, we are not going to help you." (Where the first is good for the
community, while the second is obviously bad for the community.)
Jan
> My opinion here is that we should stay passive, and at the most provide
> an open list of installer-package distributors.
>
> Gr. Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488,
LEGAL489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>.
On 27-11-2019 06:29, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
> NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for
> creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle
> creation in the future.
Shouldn't providing a installer package be open to everyone?
Why do you want to have Apache 'select' and possible implicit endorse
one or more?
My opinion here is that we should stay passive, and at the most provide
an open list of installer-package distributors.
Gr. Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [SUMMARY] Bundle GPL+CPE in Convenience Binaries (LEGAL-488, LEGAL489)
Posted by Fantri Fitriani <fa...@gmail.com>.
Pada tanggal Rab, 27 Nov 2019 13.29, Laszlo Kishalmi <
laszlo.kishalmi@gmail.com> menulis:
> Dear all,
>
> I try to summary the lengthy threads about bundling OpenJDK GPL+CPE with
> Apache NetBeans.
>
> There are mainly two readings of GPL+CPE:
>
> 1. OpenJDK (GPL+CPE) + NetBeans (Apache) = Executable which can be
> distributed under Apache license, due to CPE
> 2. CPE only allows other product built on Java to be distributed under
> their own license.
>
> As I'm not a lawyer, I cannot answer which interpretation is correct
> (maybe none of them). ASF has every right to regard the second
> interpretation, thus GPL+CPE ended up in the Category-X licenses.
>
> The following viable possibilities were brought up:
>
> 1. We may apply for an exception to the board
> 2. Use some download logic in the installer.
> 3. Leave the binary packaging and distribution to third parties.
>
> Regarding that there are interest from third parties to built on Apache
> NetBeans, I'm going to recommend the PMC to select a few distributor for
> creating installer packages and we limit/drop our installer bundle creation
> in the future.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
>