Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

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 - Remove binary ZIPs from lib.terminalemulator/examples Resolved


2"Every issue raised by JM represented in JIRA somewhere." (JA)That is what this page aims to provide. NETBEANS-304 - Every issue raised by IPMC in 9.0 Beta rc2 vote to be in JIRA Resolved

"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 - Java source files as test data: need licensing or not? Resolved

"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 - EPL licensed files to be resolved Resolved

NETBEANS-311 - CDDL/GPL licensed files to be resolved Resolved

NETBEANS-307 - Sun licensed files to be relicensed to Apache Closed

...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 - Several (not dual license) GPL license files exist Open
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 - Resolve MIT licensed file Resolved

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


NETBEANS-314 - Correct attribution for w3c licensed files Resolved
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 - Resolve licensing of Transform.xsd and other W3C files Resolved
5"How is this file licensed?" (JM)welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd NETBEANS-315 - Resolve licensing of welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd Resolved
6"This patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL/MIT header." (JM)



NETBEANS-312 - Patch files removing headers Open
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 - IP provenance of icons in Apache NetBeans Open
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 - Licensing of javafx2.samples stock photos Open
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)

  NETBEANS-317 - Too much info in binary LICENSE and NOTICE Open
10Move Rat exclusion definitions to a separate file, so the history and development of the exclusions can be more easily tracked.  NETBEANS-318 - Move RAT exclusion definitions to a separate file Resolved
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 - Remove compiled source code Open
12Licensing of wav file in JavaFX sample


NETBEANS-411 - Licensing of wav file in JavaFX sample Open





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

work in progress 

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

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



- 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.



- 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.



- 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.



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



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



- missing form NOTICE



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



- also contains 3rd party code not mentioned in LICENSE



- 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.



- missing from NOTICE file



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



- includes BSD licensed JZlib missing from LICENSE



- 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.



- LICENSE is missing this MIT licensed



- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE

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

work in progress 


- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file



- is MIT licensed not Apache licensed

work in progress 


- is CDDL licensed not Apache licensed

work in progress 



- are EPL licensed not Apache licensed

work in progress 


- has a NOTICE file that would effect NOTICE




- are MIT licensed not Apache licensed

work in progress 


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



- is under an Apache license not a CDDL one



- is under a BSD license not a CDDL one



- 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)



- 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.



- is BSD Style rather than Apache licensed




(and other spring jars)

- has a NOTICE file that would effect the NOTICE file



- has a NOTICE file that would effect the NOTICE file



- 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 - Can Apache NetBeans (incubating) use adjusted org.eclipse.osgi_3.9.1.v20140110-1610.jar Closed  


- contains apache licensed jcommander and MIT licensed jquery

- jcommander has a notice that would effect NOTICE








- 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

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 - private_key in libs.git module should be renamed Resolved  



  • 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.