ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Valentin Kulichenko <valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:35:34 GMT
Anton,

Can you please clarify what is the issue? I'm not sure I understand.

-Val

On Wed, 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