ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Downloads on the web site
Date Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:17:06 GMT
Never mind, I found the answer that GPL with CPE is not allowed.

However, all classes under "org.apache.ignite.jdk8.backport" package have
also been released by Doug Lee to the public domain under "CC0 1.0
Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication" with the following language:
----
*Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166*
*Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at*
*http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
<http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>*
----

I think we are OK. I will update the Notice file.

D.

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@gridgain.com>
wrote:

> I have a question. We actually do have some back-ported code from OpenJdk
> 8 which is licensed under GPL with CPE (Class Path Exception). Is it OK to
> have a dependency on GPL w/ CPE in the source code or do we have to remove
> it from the source code?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Brane, let me review the docs and get back to you.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10.03.2015 22:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>> > Brane,
>>> >
>>> > The RC1 was a legitimate Ignite release candidate as it was submitted
>>> for a
>>> > vote. Please let us know if there are certain documented guidelines
>>> here
>>> > that we are not aware of.
>>>
>>> It's all documented here:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>
>>> Specifically, this is written *in bold* on that page:
>>>
>>>     Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage
>>>     non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots,
>>>     release candidates, or any other similar package.
>>>
>>> It is fine to call a specific package a "release candidate" and even
>>> publish is as an ASF release under that name, but in the case of
>>> Ignite's RC1 and RC2, these are /not/ official releases because they
>>> have not been approved as such by the PPMC and IPMC.
>>>
>>> > Moreover, this RC1 zip archive provides users with the ability to kick
>>> the
>>> > tires with Apache Ignite ahead of time, before the official 1.0
>>> release is
>>> > out. I am not sure how removing it serves either community or user
>>> base of
>>> > the Ignite project.
>>>
>>> Then tell people how to fetch a tag or specific commit from the git
>>> repository, or simply how to clone a read-only (possibly shallow) copy.
>>> It definitely doesn't serve the Ignite community or user base to post
>>> confusing links to the web site.//
>>>
>>> > As a side note, we already have addressed all RC2 issues and are a
>>> couple
>>> > of days away from sending out RC3 for a vote, which will most likely
>>> become
>>> > an official Apache Ignite 1.0 release. It will be easier to just
>>> switch one
>>> > zip archive with another when that happens.
>>>
>>> You must realize that our release policy is not arbitrary and is driven
>>> by legal requirements. Even if RC3 is perfect, it will take at least a
>>> week to approve (vote on dev@ must run at least 72 hours, and the same
>>> again for the IPMC vote), so that's an extra week of confusing users and
>>> violating ASF policies. Please remove the download link because I really
>>> don't want to do that myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> While we're on the topic of RC3, I've been trying to send my comments on
>>> RC2 twice to this list in the last couple days, but apparently they
>>> haven't come through ... I'll try again, hope for the best.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>>>
>>
>

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