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 | |
2 | "Every issue raised by JM represented in JIRA somewhere." (JA) | That is what this page aims to provide. | |
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:
| |
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 |
|
...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: | |
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 | |
3 | "LICENSE is missing licenses for this IOS file (and about a dozen other files)." (JM) | html.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/html/editor/resources/DTDs/4_0/HTMLlat1.ent | |
4 | "LICENSE is missing licenses for this W3C file (and about a dozen others)." (JM) | src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/catalog/resources/Transform.xsd | |
5 | "How is this file licensed?" (JM) | welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd | |
6 | "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 | |
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. | |
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) | javafx2.samples/DisplayShelf/src/displayshelf/animalX.jpg | |
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 | ||
10 | Move Rat exclusion definitions to a separate file, so the history and development of the exclusions can be more easily tracked. |