ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Date Thu, 02 Feb 2017 09:17:53 GMT
Val,

cache-api lib license at maven now looks like

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


and I see replacement at pull-request related to this thread

#if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
   #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0" )

and I don't like it :)

Denis,

As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml has
version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
Can we ask cache-api team to release it?

Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license

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


and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Denis Magda <dmagda@apache.org> wrote:

> 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 outdated information.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