Closed emilianbold closed 3 years ago
@geertjanw yes, I mentioned this in #42. In practice I think we will also need a NOTICE file for it (and whatever entries NetBeans codebases uses to generate this list).
But, ideally, we could just have both under Apache license (I don't think it's a big problem, Azul could relicense it under multiple licenses...)
So better would be for Azul to remove the Azul license headers?
Yes, ideally remove them, and dual-license disco client under Apache 2.0 and whatever BSD license you had before.
Having everything under a single license should also simplify donation to ASF.
I think the best thing would be to keep the disco client as a JAR, BSD licensed.
The disco client will be on Maven Central.
Inconvenient, maybe, but there are advantages too. Is this OK?
I can do it either way but honestly discoclient not being in Maven Central plus being under a non-Apache license complicates things needlessly. I did wonder if it wouldn't be quicker to just use the REST API myself and avoid discoclient entirely.
I will revert the inclusion, etc. and update this PR.
@geertjanw please review the latest changes. I'm including the JAR again.
This brings us pretty close to making a PR against the NetBeans main repo. I just need to:
Great.
Won't the Azul license headers be a problem?