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 Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:52:54 GMT
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.
>

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