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 Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:08:27 GMT
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