ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)
Date Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:41:16 GMT

LGPL is optional.

The convenience binary release of Apache Ignite on the website does not
have any LGPL libraries.

The official source code release can be built with 2 options: LGPL "on" or
"off". I initially thought that it should be "on" by default, but now I
think it should be turned "off" by default because if someone builds it, we
want them to safely redistribute it.

I think this is what we previously decided anyway, so no change.


On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Branko ─îibej <brane@apache.org> wrote:

> On 01.07.2015 21:07, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>>>> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have
> >>>>> turned on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because
> >>>> users
> >>>>> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> >>>>> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download
> >>>> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only
> >> source
> >>>> code.
> >>> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite
> binary
> >>> release on the Apache Ignite website?
> >> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries"
> >> not a
> >> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).
> >>
> > We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them
> > "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.
> I'm more concerned with your assertion that "users should build with
> LGPL libraries included." This implies that the LGPL bits are /not/
> optional for full functionality, which is what I've been told several
> times in the past.
> "Optional" means the code works and is fully functional without the
> dependency. If you can't achieve that with Ignite without the LGPL bits,
> then you have a moderately huge rewrite ahead of you before you can even
> think of graduating, not least because you seem to view the ASF policies
> as something to work around, not something to conform to.
> So can I have a straight answer? Was all this optional LGPL talk just to
> fit into ASF policies, or is it actually true? And let's clear this up
> here please before the peanut gallery of the IPMC starts voicing 573
> different opinions.
> -- Brane

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