ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2017 04:24:00 GMT
Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache
2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache.
> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility
> reasons.
>
> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm
> not sure that licensing issue still exists.
>
> -Val
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been
> > discussed.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 <
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949>
> > >
> > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0?
> > >
> > > —
> > > Denis
> > >
> > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the
> > next
> > > > release.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > > valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Guys,
> > > >>
> > > >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several
> > > months
> > > >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and
> 1.0.0
> > > still
> > > >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing
> to
> > > the
> > > >> new one though).
> > > >>
> > > >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to
> > > Geronimo?
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0
> > > >>
> > > >> -Val
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no
real
> > > >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever
> > > >>> geronimo project updates the JAR.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> D.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
> > > >>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Folks,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are
we
> going
> > > to
> > > >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Val
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > > >>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Igniters,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same
as the
> > > >> JSR107?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.
> > > >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next
> release,
> > as
> > > >>> it
> > > >>>> is
> > > >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> D.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

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