incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geertjan Wielenga <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
Date Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:46:31 GMT
It really does sound like these licensing and distribution concerns can be
solved in one way or another. Also, from the NetBeans side, we're going to
do everything we can to fit into the most optimal Apache approach to
structuring our infrastructure under Apache. We want to end up in a
situation where we open everything up to transparency and clarity and
strong governance. It is something we have wanted for many years and it is
now all coming together. With the fantastic supporting messages received,
among others, from James Gosling and Simon Phipps, and a lot of enthusiasm
from the community, we're looking forward to having our proposal voted into


On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler <>
> wrote:
> > NetBeans has installers, and those installers inevitably bake in some
> things. ATM they provide both Tomcat and
> > Glassfish. I assume that could be changed to TomEE or what ever, but
> would like to know what limits to bundling
> > of various binaries there are during build time to build artifacts...
> I'm not an expert in distributing binaries from Apache projects, as
> I've not been involved in a lot of such cases - maybe someone with
> more experience can help as well.
> The most important thing is that Apache releases source code only, not
> binaries. The rather strict conditions of
> apply to the source code that we
> release.
> Projects are welcome to also distribute "convenience binaries" which
> have softer requirements as they are not officially endorsed by the
> foundation (or something like that, dunno the exact wording).
> One project that I think has done a good job in distributing such
> binaries is Flex, which has a binary installer at
> and good explanations on
> binaries at
> IMO (but as I said I'm not an expert) what's important is that
> a) Our users can reuse the source code that we release without having
> more restrictions than the Apache License defines.
> b) If we distribute convenience binaries or tools that download those,
> we must do so in a responsible way, clearly informing our users of any
> licenses that are more restrictive in these binaries, and providing a
> simple and possibly automated way of checking the integrity of
> whatever our installers might download for them.
> -Bertrand
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message