Based on comments from IPMC on Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta rc2:
- Justin Mclean (JM): https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5fdb996c8b25e5c48c47e4eca3942b656f690694d767d795524cc960@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
- John Ament (JA): https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a3ba767276847f78c79a2a4cd8b408b9b76d163fd42d7eec85549c8a@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
...these are the items that need to be fixed for Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta to be released:
| Quote | Details | Related Issue | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Unexpected binary files in the source release (these contain compiled code)". (JM) "Remove the binary zip files from the source release." (JA) | ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/process_start-linux-intel.zip | 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 |
| 3 | "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: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions 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 |
| 4 | "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) | xml.jaxb/src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/jaxb/resources/eclipselink_oxm_2_3.xsd | 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:
| Quote | Notes | Related 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 | "This patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL/MIT header." (JM) | css.lib/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/lib/antlrv4.patch html.validation/external/validator.patch | NETBEANS-312 - Getting issue details... STATUS |
| 4 | "There a large number of icons in the release do know the ip provenance of them and how they are licensed?" (JM) | NETBEANS-309 - Getting issue details... STATUS | |
| 5 | "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) | javafx2.samples/DisplayShelf/src/displayshelf/animalX.jpg | NETBEANS-308 - Getting issue details... STATUS |
| 6 | "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 |