Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 02:24:33 +0000
From: Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 release
Message-ID: <20150328022432.GN1657@boudnik.org>
References: 
 <CA+0=VoUXxEO6fR+a5wex8J47GK7Heyf8SXr7z=ZrT0vXfnrxEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150327231326.GH1657@boudnik.org>
 <20150327234006.GI1657@boudnik.org>
 <CA+0=VoVO8zH=gwNmoP6UQk3409ka+5wPvZFDor+BNUzLnpWZnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5515F688.2090201@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <5515F688.2090201@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Actually, I think I have to revoke my earlier +1. Here's why - and I
appreciate Brane's insisting on this point: even if the source release doesn't
include any unfriendly licensed code, there's no way right now for anyone to
build an (L)GPL-free binary artifact. Hence, the moment binaries are put up
for download all issues mentioned earlier will hit us.

Yes, it means that if someone chooses to get binaries from Ignite's ASF
website and wants to use hibernate - he will need to do an extra step and get
these jars elsewhere (from a 3rd party entity or else). And that's in fact why
I was speculating that it might be useful to have a script as a part of the
release to download them if a user wants to. Too bad there are software
licenses incompatible with each other. That's a fact we need to find a way to
deal with.

That said - I don't see any issues with the source artifact - that's just
build system that need a bit of tweaking. I am happy to help with the build
system changes, if you need my help at this point.

Thanks,
  Cos

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:32AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.03.2015 01:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Cos,
> >
> > My comments are below.
> >
> > However, can we proceed with the vote for this release and resolve it in
> > the next release? The RC3, which is officially downloadable release from
> > Ignite website also has this issue, among with some others, which we are
> > actually addressing with this 1.0.0 release.
> 
> Yes, and if I'd even considered that you'd ignore my mails[1] on the
> topic of not bundling optional dependencies and not building them from
> the source package unless the user explicitly requests them, then RC3
> would not be released because I'd have looked at the build artefacts.
> 
> So that's a -1 from me for this package until the build scripts are
> changed so that optional dependencies, especially those requiring LGPL,
> do *not* get built unless the user explicitly requires them; and the
> devnotes docs warn that if these optional libs are used, the
> distribution rights for the binaries are different than expected.
> 
> Any individual or commercial entity can publish binaries with these
> optional dependencies enabled, as long as they *tell* people that the
> Apache License does not control the distribution rights for those
> binaries. It's fine to have a list of such binary distributors on the
> web site. But we must not make such binaries available from ASF
> infrastructure or mirrors.
> 
> -- Brane
> 
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3C54FFCD68.6080901%40apache.org%3E
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Another topic that I'd like to address before this gets into the final
> >> release. During the voting on RC3 (or even before) we have discussed that
> >> bundling LGPL libs is a bad idea as it really _changes_ the distribution
> >> license for the artifacts. Yet, I see that RC3 is (and perhaps 1.0 will be
> >> as
> >> well) including some LGPL and EPL bits (Hibernate is one of the examples).
> >>
> > We can host our optional LGPL modules at apache-extras:
> > http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
> > However, EPL is OK: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-b
> >
> >
> >> I think those shouldn't be a part of binaries posted on ASF dist. As an
> >> alternative, anyone providing their own binary archives can do it from
> >> their
> >> own servers. It would be a good practice though to warn users of what they
> >> are
> >> getting into using the binaries under the aforementioned licenses.
> >>
> >> Am I making any sense? Thanks,
> >>   Cos
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:13PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >>> Guys, to start with:
> >>>  - the format of md5 and sha1 files aren't Unix formats. It suppose to be
> >>>
> >>> hash    file-name
> >>>
> >>> e.g.
> >>>
> >>> % md5sum /etc/hosts
> >>> aa2af9fea577aaedb79056917a6453a9  /etc/hosts
> >>>
> >>> % sha1sum /etc/hosts
> >>> ee5a6f3e4a3c109114d236c90ca382397fb998fe  /etc/hosts
> >>>
> >>> When sum-files have this format you can do things like
> >>>     % md5sum -c file-name.md5
> >>>
> >>> and get your file validated automatically. Let's fix it, please.
> >>>
> >>> Cos
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:07PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>>> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> >>>>   http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
> >>>>
> >>>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for
> >> RC3:
> >>>> 1. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue.
> >>>> 2. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC.
> >>>> 3. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC.
> >>>>
> >>>> To build a binary release from source run:
> >>>>     mvn clean package -DskipTests
> >>>>
> >>>> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are
> >> available
> >>>> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please start voting.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0
> >>>> 0 - don't care either way
> >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 (explain why)
> >>>>
> >>>> D.
>