On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Quote from Apache Legal FAQ: > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited > > > > "[...] For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK, however > > including GPL'ed source code is not.[...]" > > > > Apache Netbeans uses external tools when building and at least GPLv2- > > CP > > code is used. The license is referred to by the > > <module>/external/<artifact-filename>-license.txt file. That file holds > > additional meta data for the dependency. > > Why include the license of something that is not bundled in the release? > Regarding nbbuild/licenses/GPL-2-CP and its copies in a handful of */external/*-license.txt files (which are AFAIK used only for compile-time/optional dependencies), it seems to me that marking those with licenses helps with proper handling of licenses. I.e., we could leave the dependencies without specifying a license, but: -what if someone is interested to know what is the license of the compile-time dependency? Do they need to investigate on their own? -what we would write these compile-time dependencies to the DEPENDENCIES file? Or should we eliminate the "Compile time dependencies" from the file altogether? So, overall, it seems to me it is a better service for the users of the release to have the license included, than to hide it? (Please note that this license is, AFAIK, not included or referred to from the LICENSE file for neither the release nor the convenience binaries.) Jan > Thanks, > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
