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 2019/11/15 18:55:14 UTC
More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Dear all,
May I ask for more eyes on for our legal guidance for bundling GPL + CPE
with convenience binaries. Henri Yandell was really kind to pick this
one up, but wider range of people and opinion would be better.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-488
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-489
Thank you in advance!
Laszlo Kishalmi
in behalf of Apace NetBeans PMC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Fantri Fitriani <fa...@gmail.com>.
Pada tanggal Sab, 16 Nov 2019 02.55, Laszlo Kishalmi <
laszlo.kishalmi@gmail.com> menulis:
> Dear all,
>
> May I ask for more eyes on for our legal guidance for bundling GPL + CPE
> with convenience binaries. Henri Yandell was really kind to pick this
> one up, but wider range of people and opinion would be better.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-488
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-489
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
>
> in behalf of Apace NetBeans PMC
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>.
On 17-11-19 20:36, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 20:29, Simon IJskes <simon@ijskes.org
> <ma...@ijskes.org>> wrote:
>
> On 17-11-19 20:12, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> > No, many of them are not developers. Many of them have not typed one
> > single character of code. They’re at a college or university.
> They have
> > no idea what NetBeans is and what Java is.
>
> Ok, would Oracle consider hosting a Netbeans starter package?
>
>
>
> Many organizations can consider that.
>
> The point is that ideally Apache would consider that too. Apache is
> where NetBeans comes from now and ideally the convenience binary
> provided by Apache would include the JDK.
I agree. Short of looking to the website if we can do this, i hope the
board can provide some guidance here.
I wouldnt be surprised if we do this, and neither if we don't. Is it
principles vs pragmatism? We have been here before.
> > Please consider thinking from the above perspective. What
> impression are
> > they getting of Apache?
>
> That the kind of license you choose is important?
>
>
>
> Indeed. But what choice do we have when it comes to the JDK?
Indeed. The choice is simple. We do or we don't.
Gr. Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 20:29, Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org> wrote:
> On 17-11-19 20:12, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> > No, many of them are not developers. Many of them have not typed one
> > single character of code. They’re at a college or university. They have
> > no idea what NetBeans is and what Java is.
>
> Ok, would Oracle consider hosting a Netbeans starter package?
Many organizations can consider that.
The point is that ideally Apache would consider that too. Apache is where
NetBeans comes from now and ideally the convenience binary provided by
Apache would include the JDK.
>
> > Please consider thinking from the above perspective. What impression are
> > they getting of Apache?
>
> That the kind of license you choose is important?
>
Indeed. But what choice do we have when it comes to the JDK?
Gj
> Gr. Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>.
On 17-11-19 20:12, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> No, many of them are not developers. Many of them have not typed one
> single character of code. They’re at a college or university. They have
> no idea what NetBeans is and what Java is.
Ok, would Oracle consider hosting a Netbeans starter package?
> Please consider thinking from the above perspective. What impression are
> they getting of Apache?
That the kind of license you choose is important?
Gr. Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com>.
Just adding to the user base: NetBeans is used as a main training tool
even in high-school for kids who do not have any developer experience,
it is just their first introduction to (mostly Java) programming.
Also we got many 1 star review on the Snap store, saying Apache NetBeans
is "does not work/crap" due to the users does not read that the
requirement is an installed JDK. Well, it might be a user problem, but
users are changing too.
On 11/17/19 11:12 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:51, Simon IJskes <sijskes@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>
> > I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
> > binaries in the convenience binaries:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> > So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries
> with
> > different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
> > whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or
> generally)
> > extended to GPL+CPE.
>
> On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
>
> > They may not be distributed
> >
> > Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed
> components, be it in source or binary form; and be it in ASF
> source code or convenience binaries.
>
> GPL is still Cat-X.
>
> > Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is
> certainly possible
> > to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of
> combining
> > several pieces of software with different licenses on the
> system of the
> > user. Take for instance maven.
> >
> > A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> > combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute
> a combined
> > license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
> > bootstrap of
> > the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> > developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK
> on their
> > system?
> >
> >
> > Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the
> current state,
> > but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community
> (i.e. why
> > should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different
> IDE, which
> > is easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they
> > prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members
> simply want
> > a tool to do their job, not something that requires complex
> set-up and
> > care. And this then has negative impact on the developer community.
>
> As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
> started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as
> well. I
> think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has
> an effect.
>
> A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
> Netbeans starter package.
>
> Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are
> developers. And
> would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a
> JDK
> is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
>
>
>
> No, many of them are not developers. Many of them have not typed one
> single character of code. They’re at a college or university. They
> have no idea what NetBeans is and what Java is.
>
> Please consider thinking from the above perspective. What impression
> are they getting of Apache?
>
> Gj
>
>
>
>
> > (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans"
> just a
> > 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
>
> Indeed. Extreme end.
>
> > Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool
> like this,
> > is this really the direction we want to take?)
>
> To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
> licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and
> GPL is
> long known.
>
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 at 19:51, Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>
> > I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
> > binaries in the convenience binaries:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> > So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
> > different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
> > whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally)
> > extended to GPL+CPE.
>
> On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
>
> > They may not be distributed
> >
> > Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be it
> in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or convenience
> binaries.
>
> GPL is still Cat-X.
>
> > Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly
> possible
> > to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
> > several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of
> the
> > user. Take for instance maven.
> >
> > A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> > combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a
> combined
> > license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
> > bootstrap of
> > the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> > developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their
> > system?
> >
> >
> > Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current state,
> > but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community (i.e. why
> > should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different IDE, which
> > is easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they
> > prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members simply want
> > a tool to do their job, not something that requires complex set-up and
> > care. And this then has negative impact on the developer community.
>
> As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
> started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as well. I
> think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has an
> effect.
>
> A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
> Netbeans starter package.
>
> Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are developers. And
> would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a JDK
> is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
>
No, many of them are not developers. Many of them have not typed one single
character of code. They’re at a college or university. They have no idea
what NetBeans is and what Java is.
Please consider thinking from the above perspective. What impression are
they getting of Apache?
Gj
> > (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just a
> > 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
>
> Indeed. Extreme end.
>
> > Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool like this,
> > is this really the direction we want to take?)
>
> To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
> licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and GPL is
> long known.
>
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org>.
On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
> binaries in the convenience binaries:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
> So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
> different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
> whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally)
> extended to GPL+CPE.
On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
> They may not be distributed
>
> Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be it in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or convenience binaries.
GPL is still Cat-X.
> Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly possible
> to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
> several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of the
> user. Take for instance maven.
>
> A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a combined
> license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
> bootstrap of
> the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their
> system?
>
>
> Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current state,
> but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community (i.e. why
> should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different IDE, which
> is easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they
> prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members simply want
> a tool to do their job, not something that requires complex set-up and
> care. And this then has negative impact on the developer community.
As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as well. I
think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has an effect.
A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
Netbeans starter package.
Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are developers. And
would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a JDK
is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
> (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just a
> 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
Indeed. Extreme end.
> Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool like this,
> is this really the direction we want to take?)
To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and GPL is
long known.
Groeten,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
On very rare occasions the legal affairs committee has granted special exceptions for certain project’s binary convenience packages. OpenOffice is one example. IMO NetBeans could make a similar request.
Best Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 17, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org> wrote:
>
> On 17-11-19 19:56, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
>> Please keep in mind, that we are not talking about GPL but GPL+CPE license.
>> Two different things.
>
> Not quite so different.
>
> But i tried to find a clear rule that brings GPL+CPE into another category, and i could not find it.
>
> From https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>
>> GNU GPL 1, 2, 3
>> Special exceptions to the GNU GPL (e.g. GNU Classpath) unless otherwise permitted elsewhere on this page.
>
> Maybe we should work first on clarifing this statement?
>
> Gr. Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>.
On 17-11-19 19:56, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
> Please keep in mind, that we are not talking about GPL but GPL+CPE license.
>
> Two different things.
Not quite so different.
But i tried to find a clear rule that brings GPL+CPE into another
category, and i could not find it.
From https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> GNU GPL 1, 2, 3
>
> Special exceptions to the GNU GPL (e.g. GNU Classpath) unless otherwise permitted elsewhere on this page.
>
Maybe we should work first on clarifing this statement?
Gr. Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com>.
Please keep in mind, that we are not talking about GPL but GPL+CPE license.
Two different things.
On 11/17/19 10:48 AM, Simon IJskes wrote:
> On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>
>> I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
>> binaries in the convenience binaries:
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>>
>> So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
>> different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
>> whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally)
>> extended to GPL+CPE.
>
> On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
>
>> They may not be distributed
>>
>> Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be
>> it in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or
>> convenience binaries.
>
> GPL is still Cat-X.
>
>> Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly
>> possible
>> to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
>> several pieces of software with different licenses on the system
>> of the
>> user. Take for instance maven.
>>
>> A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
>> combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a
>> combined
>> license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
>> bootstrap of
>> the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
>> developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their
>> system?
>>
>>
>> Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current
>> state, but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community
>> (i.e. why should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a
>> different IDE, which is easier to set-up? Including the old
>> non-Apache NetBeans, if they prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.)
>> The community members simply want a tool to do their job, not
>> something that requires complex set-up and care. And this then has
>> negative impact on the developer community.
>
> As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
> started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as well.
> I think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has an
> effect.
>
> A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
> Netbeans starter package.
>
> Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are developers.
> And would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a
> JDK is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
>
>> (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just
>> a 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
>
> Indeed. Extreme end.
>
>> Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool like
>> this, is this really the direction we want to take?)
>
> To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
> licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and GPL is
> long known.
>
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 7:48 PM Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org> wrote:
> On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
>
> > I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
> > binaries in the convenience binaries:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> >
> > So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
> > different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
> > whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally)
> > extended to GPL+CPE.
>
> On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
>
> > They may not be distributed
> >
> > Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be it
> in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or convenience
> binaries.
>
> GPL is still Cat-X.
>
As Lazslo pointed out, we are talking of GPL+CPE here, can we please use
the more precise description to avoid confusion?
Anyway, correct, GPL+CPE is still Cat-X. Hence these requests, which
basically are "can we please allow GPL+CPE components, either in some
specific defined approved cases, or more generally?".
> > Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly
> possible
> > to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
> > several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of
> the
> > user. Take for instance maven.
> >
> > A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> > combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a
> combined
> > license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
> > bootstrap of
> > the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> > developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their
> > system?
> >
> >
> > Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current state,
> > but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community (i.e. why
> > should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different IDE, which
> > is easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they
> > prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members simply want
> > a tool to do their job, not something that requires complex set-up and
> > care. And this then has negative impact on the developer community.
>
> As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
> started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as well. I
> think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has an
> effect.
>
> A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
> Netbeans starter package.
>
> Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are developers. And
> would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a JDK
> is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
>
> > (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just a
> > 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
>
> Indeed. Extreme end.
>
> > Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool like this,
> > is this really the direction we want to take?)
>
> To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
> licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and GPL is
> long known.
>
Well, so far, I didn't hear that *GPL+CPE* would be incompatible with ASL.
Is it?
Jan
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@ijskes.org>.
On 17-11-19 18:30, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL
> binaries in the convenience binaries:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
> So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
> different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is,
> whether this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally)
> extended to GPL+CPE.
On https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited it states:
> They may not be distributed
>
> Apache projects may not distribute Category X licensed components, be it in source or binary form; and be it in ASF source code or convenience binaries.
GPL is still Cat-X.
> Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly possible
> to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
> several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of the
> user. Take for instance maven.
>
> A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a combined
> license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the
> bootstrap of
> the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their
> system?
>
>
> Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current state,
> but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community (i.e. why
> should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different IDE, which
> is easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they
> prefer NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members simply want
> a tool to do their job, not something that requires complex set-up and
> care. And this then has negative impact on the developer community.
As i said before, whe would certainly more popular as before when we
started to distribute GPL licensed software (and other Cat X) as well. I
think we would broadly agree (maybe not in magnitude) that it has an effect.
A practical solution would be to ask Oracle if they want to host a
Netbeans starter package.
Again, i would like to emphasize, the Netbeans users are developers. And
would a solution be really complex to setup and care? As soon as a JDK
is on a workstation, it is plain sailing.
> (I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just a
> 100 lines bash script that installs everything from other sources.
Indeed. Extreme end.
> Besides the obvious question on who would want to use a tool like this,
> is this really the direction we want to take?)
To be blunt, it wasnt the ASF who determined the OpenJDK needed to be
licensed under the GPL+CPE. The incompatibility between ASL and GPL is
long known.
Groeten,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 5:30 PM Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Opinion:
>
> I found this in the license FAQ:
>
> > Can ASF PMCs host projects that are not under the Apache License?
> >
> > No. If you are an ASF PMC with a truly exceptional situation, please
> create a JIRA issue.
>
>
I believe the 3rd party license policy allows to include e.g. EPL binaries
in the convenience binaries:
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
So Apache projects are *already* allowed to distribute binaries with
different licenses than the Apache License. The only question is, whether
this could be (either on a case-by-case basis, or generally) extended to
GPL+CPE.
To host, distribute, either source code or a convenience binary, is all
> the same thing. It is distribution. This is by permission from an author
> or a rights-holder (some variations in different countries, but
> grosso-modo the same).
>
> As long as you keep to the rules of the license there is no problem. A
> entitity can decide to distribute or not.
>
> But who is the distributing entity? In this case it is the ASF. So if we
> look in our bylaws there is no guidance. It is an exception. Exception
> needs to be escalated to the board, with a clear defined proposal.
>
> But, i've until now never seen a case that proved successfully the real
> need to distribute software (of any kind, source or binary) with a
> different license than the ASL.
>
> Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly possible
> to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
> several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of the
> user. Take for instance maven.
>
> A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
> combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a combined
> license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the bootstrap of
> the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
> developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their system?
>
Well, they can if they absolutely must. And is mostly the current state,
but as I see it has a negative impact on the user community (i.e. why
should they use Apache NetBeans when they can use a different IDE, which is
easier to set-up? Including the old non-Apache NetBeans, if they prefer
NetBeans over a different IDE.) The community members simply want a tool to
do their job, not something that requires complex set-up and care. And this
then has negative impact on the developer community.
(I wonder - on an extreme end of this path is "Apache NetBeans" just a 100
lines bash script that installs everything from other sources. Besides the
obvious question on who would want to use a tool like this, is this really
the direction we want to take?)
Jan
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
>
> On 17-11-19 16:32, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> > (As a NetBean committer and PMC member, I am obviously biased here.)
> >
> > I don't think I can comment on the case of bundling the whole OpenJDK,
> > so this is mostly about other possible uses of specific GPL *with
> > ClassPath Exception* libraries, like (nb-)javac and possibly OpenJFX.
> >
> > One thing I'd like to point out is that neither of the proposals here is
> > to distribute the GPL+CPE code in the Apache distribution (which is, by
> > definition, a source). So I don't think there are any surprises there.
> > These proposals are about including the binaries in a convenience
> > binaries only (albeit in convenience binaries distributed by Apache).
> > And the convenience binaries can and already do contain code that is not
> > under the Apache license - like code under EPL. So, I am not quite sure
> > there's something really surprising in that convenience binaries contain
> > code not under the Apache license.
>
> > One notable aspect of NetBeans is that it is (among others) an end-user
> > tool, and a tool that used to try to provide as best user experience
> > out-of-the-box, as possible. I think it is very difficult to explain why
> > the users (members of the user community) must either install a
> > "third-party" plugin, or install and run the IDE on a JDK (like possibly
> > JDK 13) they don't normally want to use. (Or use possibly an older JDK,
> > and potentially face bugs that are unfixable in NetBeans.)
>
>
> > Yes, a third-party could distribute NetBeans with all these libraries
> > (and there already is such a distribution), but it feels like this
> > approach fragments the community around NetBeans, rather than unit it
> > for the benefit of the project.
>
> I
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Fantri Fitriani <fa...@gmail.com>.
Pada tanggal Sel, 19 Nov 2019 14.06, Hen <ba...@apache.org> menulis:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:30 AM Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Opinion:
>>
>> I found this in the license FAQ:
>>
>> > Can ASF PMCs host projects that are not under the Apache License?
>> >
>> > No. If you are an ASF PMC with a truly exceptional situation, please
>> create a JIRA issue.
>>
>> To host, distribute, either source code or a convenience binary, is all
>> the same thing. It is distribution.
>
>
> Note that that isn't the intent of that FAQ. By 'host' it's trying to mean
> having a project whose core source code is under a different license,
> rather than including pieces which are under a different license.
>
> Hen
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Hen <ba...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 8:30 AM Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Opinion:
>
> I found this in the license FAQ:
>
> > Can ASF PMCs host projects that are not under the Apache License?
> >
> > No. If you are an ASF PMC with a truly exceptional situation, please
> create a JIRA issue.
>
> To host, distribute, either source code or a convenience binary, is all
> the same thing. It is distribution.
Note that that isn't the intent of that FAQ. By 'host' it's trying to mean
having a project whose core source code is under a different license,
rather than including pieces which are under a different license.
Hen
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com>.
On 11/17/19 8:29 AM, Simon IJskes wrote:
> But, i've until now never seen a case that proved successfully the
> real need to distribute software (of any kind, source or binary) with
> a different license than the ASL.
It would not be a different license. The CPE would allow these
convenience binaries to be copied and distributed under ASL ans terms,
of course in the case if ASL terms would allow that.
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules,
and
*to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice***
, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module,
the terms and conditions of the license of that module
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org>.
Opinion:
I found this in the license FAQ:
> Can ASF PMCs host projects that are not under the Apache License?
>
> No. If you are an ASF PMC with a truly exceptional situation, please create a JIRA issue.
To host, distribute, either source code or a convenience binary, is all
the same thing. It is distribution. This is by permission from an author
or a rights-holder (some variations in different countries, but
grosso-modo the same).
As long as you keep to the rules of the license there is no problem. A
entitity can decide to distribute or not.
But who is the distributing entity? In this case it is the ASF. So if we
look in our bylaws there is no guidance. It is an exception. Exception
needs to be escalated to the board, with a clear defined proposal.
But, i've until now never seen a case that proved successfully the real
need to distribute software (of any kind, source or binary) with a
different license than the ASL.
Now for our creativity, and technical mastery. It is certainly possible
to create software that is ASL licensed, and is capable of combining
several pieces of software with different licenses on the system of the
user. Take for instance maven.
A maven based solution or equivalent solves the problem of the
combination of licenses, en moves the decision to distribute a combined
license product outside the ASF. The only thing left is the bootstrap of
the installation of the openjdk. As most users of Netbeans are
developers, can we trust them with installing a or any JDK on their system?
Groeten,
Simon
On 17-11-19 16:32, Jan Lahoda wrote:
> (As a NetBean committer and PMC member, I am obviously biased here.)
>
> I don't think I can comment on the case of bundling the whole OpenJDK,
> so this is mostly about other possible uses of specific GPL *with
> ClassPath Exception* libraries, like (nb-)javac and possibly OpenJFX.
>
> One thing I'd like to point out is that neither of the proposals here is
> to distribute the GPL+CPE code in the Apache distribution (which is, by
> definition, a source). So I don't think there are any surprises there.
> These proposals are about including the binaries in a convenience
> binaries only (albeit in convenience binaries distributed by Apache).
> And the convenience binaries can and already do contain code that is not
> under the Apache license - like code under EPL. So, I am not quite sure
> there's something really surprising in that convenience binaries contain
> code not under the Apache license.
> One notable aspect of NetBeans is that it is (among others) an end-user
> tool, and a tool that used to try to provide as best user experience
> out-of-the-box, as possible. I think it is very difficult to explain why
> the users (members of the user community) must either install a
> "third-party" plugin, or install and run the IDE on a JDK (like possibly
> JDK 13) they don't normally want to use. (Or use possibly an older JDK,
> and potentially face bugs that are unfixable in NetBeans.)
> Yes, a third-party could distribute NetBeans with all these libraries
> (and there already is such a distribution), but it feels like this
> approach fragments the community around NetBeans, rather than unit it
> for the benefit of the project.
I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
(As a NetBean committer and PMC member, I am obviously biased here.)
I don't think I can comment on the case of bundling the whole OpenJDK, so
this is mostly about other possible uses of specific GPL *with ClassPath
Exception* libraries, like (nb-)javac and possibly OpenJFX.
One thing I'd like to point out is that neither of the proposals here is to
distribute the GPL+CPE code in the Apache distribution (which is, by
definition, a source). So I don't think there are any surprises there.
These proposals are about including the binaries in a convenience binaries
only (albeit in convenience binaries distributed by Apache). And the
convenience binaries can and already do contain code that is not under the
Apache license - like code under EPL. So, I am not quite sure there's
something really surprising in that convenience binaries contain code not
under the Apache license.
One notable aspect of NetBeans is that it is (among others) an end-user
tool, and a tool that used to try to provide as best user experience
out-of-the-box, as possible. I think it is very difficult to explain why
the users (members of the user community) must either install a
"third-party" plugin, or install and run the IDE on a JDK (like possibly
JDK 13) they don't normally want to use. (Or use possibly an older JDK, and
potentially face bugs that are unfixable in NetBeans.)
Yes, a third-party could distribute NetBeans with all these libraries (and
there already is such a distribution), but it feels like this approach
fragments the community around NetBeans, rather than unit it for the
benefit of the project.
Jan
On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 12:37 PM Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org> wrote:
> Opinion:
>
> Assuming anybody can distribute the combination as described, it is
> merely a policy decision. Do we as apache want to distribute GPL?
>
> What i can see over the years, is that Apache constantly changes. We use
> external version control, external build systems. We limit ourselfs in
> only distributing APL code.
>
> Do we want to change this? The imcplicit contract that users have with
> Apache, is that we can trust the code we download from apache is always
> apache licensed. Do we want to change this?
>
> We would certainly be more popular than before, becoming a one-stop shop
> where you can find anything you need with high quality.
>
> But do we confuse things this way? Apache license is a stance. Something
> we all subscribe to, and something whe defend. This has a reason.
>
> I'm to young to remember, but hasnt the same issue cropped up with the
> time maven was started? Maven is also a distributing entity, and
> external to Apache. What arguments were given at that time to
> externalize that?
>
> Groeten,
> Simon
>
> P.S. apologies, and please ignore, if we are way beyond this point in
> the discussion.
>
> On 15-11-19 19:55, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > May I ask for more eyes on for our legal guidance for bundling GPL + CPE
> > with convenience binaries. Henri Yandell was really kind to pick this
> > one up, but wider range of people and opinion would be better.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-488
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-489
> >
> > Thank you in advance!
> >
> > Laszlo Kishalmi
> >
> > in behalf of Apace NetBeans PMC
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: More Eyes Requested: Bundling GPL+CPE (OpenJDK) into convenience
binaries. (LEGAL-488, LEGAL-489)
Posted by Simon IJskes <si...@apache.org>.
Opinion:
Assuming anybody can distribute the combination as described, it is
merely a policy decision. Do we as apache want to distribute GPL?
What i can see over the years, is that Apache constantly changes. We use
external version control, external build systems. We limit ourselfs in
only distributing APL code.
Do we want to change this? The imcplicit contract that users have with
Apache, is that we can trust the code we download from apache is always
apache licensed. Do we want to change this?
We would certainly be more popular than before, becoming a one-stop shop
where you can find anything you need with high quality.
But do we confuse things this way? Apache license is a stance. Something
we all subscribe to, and something whe defend. This has a reason.
I'm to young to remember, but hasnt the same issue cropped up with the
time maven was started? Maven is also a distributing entity, and
external to Apache. What arguments were given at that time to
externalize that?
Groeten,
Simon
P.S. apologies, and please ignore, if we are way beyond this point in
the discussion.
On 15-11-19 19:55, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> May I ask for more eyes on for our legal guidance for bundling GPL + CPE
> with convenience binaries. Henri Yandell was really kind to pick this
> one up, but wider range of people and opinion would be better.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-488
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-489
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
>
> in behalf of Apace NetBeans PMC
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org