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 10:20:52 GMT
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