ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedot...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:52:21 GMT
Hi all,

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed.
Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/
ignite/pull/1475 .

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:

> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the
> following at the moment
>
> // ------------------------------------------------------------------
> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this
> distribution
> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License.
> // ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> ==================
> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec)
> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0
> ============================================================
> ==================
> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a:
> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For
> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt.
>
>
> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/IGNITE-3793
>
> —
> Denis
> > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>


-- 
Kind regards,
Alexander.

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