ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:03:57 GMT
Guys,

JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all the places:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml>
https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml>

Even if you go to Maven 
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 <https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0>

and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following

License	URL
JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License	https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt
<https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>

But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows outdated information.

So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product that uses JSR
107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR already conforms to Apache 2.0.

—
Denis
 
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Igniters, please advise on it.
> 
> Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version
> 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via
> Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at
> JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter
> of a build being provided.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Guys,
>> 
>> I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with
>> "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals.
>> We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :)
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> PR updated
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged.
>>>> It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes
>>> for
>>>> dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the
>>>> point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>.
>>>> I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of
>>>>> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it
>> contains
>>>>> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists
>>>>> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are
>> available
>>>>> under Apache 2.0.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the
>>>>> reason.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> —
>>>>> Denis
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Alexander, thanks!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> —
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Created Upsource review for the subject:
>>>>>>> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed.
>>>>>>>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/i
>>>>>>>> gnite/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/jsr1
>>>>> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif
>>>>> act/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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Alexander.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Alexander.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Alexander.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.


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