ignite-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue
Date Thu, 03 Mar 2016 17:52:49 GMT
Incidentally,

1. Do we *fully* implement the JSR-107 specification?
2. Can we assert that we fully pass the TCK, and that we satisfy the
requirements referenced by the the license in this regard?

@Edward – thanks for passing on the message from your legal dept.

Cheers,
Raúl.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
wrote:

> Edward,
>
> I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers
> evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of
> Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following
> text:
>
> ————-
> 2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations.
> Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive,
> non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license
> (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or,
> subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have
> covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent
> Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the
> Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b)
> does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name
> Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java
> interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than
> those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being
> implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including
> satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such
> Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing
> license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No
> license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example,
> modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use
> rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no
> right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade
> names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted
> hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or
> registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other
> countries.
> —————
>
> Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing
> under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I
> will post an update here in a few days.
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <
> edward.kaganovich@blackrock.com> wrote:
>
>> Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal
>> department.
>> Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
>> apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
>> That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond
>> the
>> evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
>> implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
>> be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
>> issue raised in jsr107 space:
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this
>> discussion
>> the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
>> Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
>> geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message