activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0
Date Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:01:09 GMT
Awesome news!
On Jan 4, 2016 05:00, "Martyn Taylor" <mtaylor@redhat.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO.
>
> The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context of
> Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns.  I realise there
> is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and perhaps
> contradictions between legal stances on Artemis and other projects.  But,
> given we've had the OK from several board members, I am keen to go ahead
> and cut the next RC.
>
> The legal discussion thread can be found here:
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201512.mbox/%3C567BDDC1.8060805@redhat.com%3E
>
> The next RC will have addressed the issues with binary inclusions in the
> src release and also the great usability feedback provided by Claus Ibsen.
> It should be with you very soon.
>
> Regards
> Martyn
>
> On 24/12/15 12:01, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>
>> I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please
>> follow the thread at the legal-discuss list.
>>
>> On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> I do not see what the issue is here.  We are not *distributing* any LGPL
>>> licensed library.  We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram said, how
>>> does this differ from relying on bash or win32?
>>>
>>> To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> ""
>>> CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY ON COMPONENTS UNDER PROHIBITED LICENSES?¶ <
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited>
>>>
>>> Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the
>>> previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the
>>> component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. For
>>> example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
>>> ""
>>>
>>> I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to
>>> proactively enable the use of libaio.  The ASYNCIO journal is what we
>>> recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance on
>>> persisted messages, for this reason it should be default.  I agree with
>>> Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user experience, as the
>>> default configuration is now considerably slower.  Out of the box
>>> configuration should in my opinion be as close to optimum as we can.
>>> Having a user read the documentation, understand what ASYNCIO is, what
>>> benefits it has and then make a decision to enable it, is more effort.
>>>
>>> Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against
>>> licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a
>>> definitive answer.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your
>>>> system.  Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
>>>> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
>>>>> “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have
to
>>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
use
>>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
occurs
>>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s occurring,
>>>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
>>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open
a
>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
>>>>>>> johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question
w/ legal
>>>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
release,
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We
were ok
>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue
we
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message