Based on comments from IPMC on Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta rc2:

...these are the items that need to be fixed for Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta to be released:

 QuoteDetailsRelated Issue

"Unexpected binary files in the source release (these contain compiled code)". (JM)

"Remove the binary zip files from the source release." (JA)


NETBEANS-303 - Getting issue details... STATUS


2"Every issue raised by JM represented in JIRA somewhere." (JA)That is what this page aims to provide. NETBEANS-304 - Getting issue details... STATUS

"There’s a number of file that are missing ASF headers, including 700 odd java files" (JM)

"Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache

license." (JA)

These are test data (all in test/*/data), they are (at worst) pseudo code and are really nothing more than test data, which would cause tests to fail if they were licensed and hence fall under this Apache exception in terms of license headers not being required:

On the other hand, this looks like Java source code, whether used for test purposes or not, and we need to decide whether they should/should not be licensed:


NETBEANS-306 - Getting issue details... STATUS

"LICENSE is missing licenses for these CDDL, EPL, and the sun public licensed files, however CDDL, EPL and the sun public license are in Category B and not allowed is source form in a release." (JM)

"Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from other locations." (JA)



diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/provider/DiffTestFile1b.txt

NETBEANS-310 - Getting issue details... STATUS

NETBEANS-311 - Getting issue details... STATUS

NETBEANS-307 - Getting issue details... STATUS

...and these need to be fixed at some point after Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta but before becoming a top level project:

 QuoteNotesRelated Issue
1"Several (not dual license) GPL license files exist in the source release. Does this software include GPL or depend on any GPL licensed software?" (JM)

For instance:

NETBEANS-305 - Getting issue details... STATUS
2"LICENSE is missing licenses for this MIT licensed file (which also includes MIT licensed normalize.css)." (JM)css.model/test/unit/data/testfiles/bootstrap.css

NETBEANS-313 - Getting issue details... STATUS

3"LICENSE is missing licenses for this IOS file (and about a dozen other files)." (JM)


NETBEANS-314 - Getting issue details... STATUS
4"LICENSE is missing licenses for this W3C file (and about a dozen others)." (JM)src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/catalog/resources/Transform.xsd NETBEANS-316 - Getting issue details... STATUS
5"How is this file licensed?" (JM)welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd NETBEANS-315 - Getting issue details... STATUS
6"This patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL/MIT header." (JM)



NETBEANS-312 - Getting issue details... STATUS
7"There are a large number of icons in the release do know the ip provenance of them and how they are licensed?" (JM)Remove the rat exclusion for the images, run rat again, and we'll have a long list of these to examine. All comments related to this, please add them as comments to the related issue. NETBEANS-309 - Getting issue details... STATUS
8"There also seems to be a number of stock photos in the release. How are they licensed? Do you have permission to use or distribute them?" (JM)


NETBEANS-308 - Getting issue details... STATUS
9"I glanced at the binary LICENSE and NOTICE of the binary and I think there's too much information in there.

- There is no need to repeat the Apache license text several times
- Only 3rd party software that is bundled in the source release needs to be mention in LICENSE and NOTICE. Is everything mentioned really bundled?
- NOTICE seems to contain too much information
- For long licenses it best to use a pointer the the full text of the license rather than include the full text" (JM)

See below "Additional notes on LICENSE and NOTICE" for details. NETBEANS-317 - Getting issue details... STATUS
10Move Rat exclusion definitions to a separate file, so the history and development of the exclusions can be more easily tracked.  NETBEANS-318 - Getting issue details... STATUS
11Remove compiled souec code1 ./
2 ./
3 ./classfile/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/classfile/datafiles/WithLambda.classx
4 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/left-square.class
5 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/SwitchData.class
6 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/test91098.class
7 ./nbi/engine/src/org/netbeans/installer/utils/applications/TestJDK.class
NETBEANS-410 - Getting issue details... STATUS
12Licensing of wav file in JavaFX sample


NETBEANS-411 - Getting issue details... STATUS





Netbeans jars are missing LICENSE and NOTICE file in META_INF. Note that this may vary on a jar by jar basis.


./extide/ant/etc/ant-bootstrap.jar (and other ant jars)

- see LICENSE at it mentions SAX2 and that may be missing from LICENSE

  NETBEANS-823 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- has odd NOTICE that may impact NOTICE file. Looking at it I think the notice bit should be included and the rest may affect LICENSE.

  NETBEANS-824 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- has no notice but copyright has been incorrectly add to license you may want to include that in NOTICE as if it was in a NOTICE file or do nothing.

  NETBEANS-825 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- missing from LICENSE



- I see the public domain “notice” has been copied from the notice file. IMO this should be in notice but in license but is an upstream issue.

  NETBEANS-826 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- probably no need to include this in NOTICE as you’re done

  NETBEANS-827 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- no need for line (Visigoth Software) in NOTICE having it in license is enough IMO

  NETBEANS-828 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- missing form NOTICE

  NETBEANS-829 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- contains org.kohsuke.rngom MIT licensed missing from LICENSE

  NETBEANS-830 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- also contains 3rd party code not mentioned in LICENSE

  NETBEANS-831 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- thesis where the bulk of you NOTICE info come from and why I thought something was up. Again

it’s an upstream issue just about all of this information should be in LICENSE not NOTICE,

but as the upstream project NOTICE file has this issue including it all is valid.

  NETBEANS-832 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- missing from NOTICE file

  NETBEANS-833 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- this seems to be CDDL not Apache 1.1? Not 100% sure here.

  NETBEANS-834 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- includes BSD licensed JZlib missing from LICENSE

  NETBEANS-835 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- I assume this is tomcat? if so it has a NOTICE file and should be included in NOTICE. Pity

there no NOTICE file in the jar.

  NETBEANS-836 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- LICENSE is missing this MIT licensed

  NETBEANS-837 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file

  NETBEANS-838 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE

DONE: A NetBeans jar. 


- is not Apache licensed

jlahoda: not sure there's a problem: the jar is distributed by Apache Maven without a special license, and what appears to be the homepage: says Apache License, Version 2.0 







- are EPL license not Apache licensed



- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- is MIT licensed not Apache licensed



- is CDDL licensed not Apache licensed




- are EPL licensed not Apache licensed



- has a NOTICE file that would effect NOTICE

There appears to be no NOTICE in this file?

NETBEANS-839 - Getting issue details... STATUS




- are MIT licensed not Apache licensed



- has an incorrect NOTICE file (copy/paste error I assume) and if fixed may effect the NOTICE file

  NETBEANS-840 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- is under an Apache license not a CDDL one

  NETBEANS-841 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- is under a BSD license not a CDDL one

  NETBEANS-842 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- is under an Apache 2.0 license not a CDDL one and has a NOTICE file that effect NOTICE (although none of it’s content mean anything IMO)

  NETBEANS-843 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- is may not be possible to release with a snapshot jar I not sure re that. It as ASF project and the code has not been released by it’s PMC.

  NETBEANS-844 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- is BSD Style rather than Apache licensed

  NETBEANS-845 - Getting issue details... STATUS




(and other spring jars)

- has a NOTICE file that would effect the NOTICE file

  NETBEANS-846 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- has a NOTICE file that would effect the NOTICE file

  NETBEANS-847 - Getting issue details... STATUS



- I’m not sure if the OSGi license is compatible with the Apache one. It’s not listed in Category A/B/X you may need to ask on legal discuss. It may be under EPL but not 100% sure.

LEGAL-361 - Getting issue details... STATUS  


- contains apache licensed jcommander and MIT licensed jquery

- jcommander has a notice that would effect NOTICE

  NETBEANS-848 - Getting issue details... STATUS








- have NOTICE files that would effect the NOTICE file

- a couple have DISCLAIMER is that’s right?

- are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?

Fixed in the HTML/Java repo as  6363e49ea72 & ready for next release of HTML/Java API.





(and a few others similarly named)

- are missing from LICENSE

DONE: NetBeans jars. 
 ./libs.git/test/unit/data/private_keyIt would be good to rename this file to something like "testing_key" to clarify that it's not in there by mistake. NETBEANS-283 - Getting issue details... STATUS  



  • No labels


  1. One minor thing that I also suggested on the Incubator general list is to move the RAT exclusions definitions to their own file which contains nothing else. This will make them and especially their evolution easier to track.

  2. Great, yes, will make an issue for this too.