I tend to agree with Raul. We have been anal-retentive to a fault with regard to LGPL, instead of focusing on usability. Our users are already required to take a conscious step to include LGPL modules into Ignite builds, so there is no implicit “drag-in”, as Raul mentioned.
I would vote for publishing all Ignite modules to Maven, without exception. D. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Brane, > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > > We'd be publishing modules that can't be used without the LGPL > > components. I'm not sure how that stands WRT our policies but I can't > > see how it would be a service to our users to actively nudge them > > towards using restrictive-licensed code. > > > > The ASF policies specify that, as long as our components are optional and > not needed by the core project, we can publish them, obviously *without* > packaging the LGPL binary nor implicitly "dragging it in" during the build. > This can be achieved with a 'runtime' scope in Maven. > > It does make a huge difference to the end user of these 3 modules – being > able to reference ignite-hibernate and simply having to manually drop in > the Hibernate dependency vs. having to: (1) check out the source, (2) run > the build, (3) publish the artifacts in their corporate Nexus repo, etc. + > having to do this *for each release*. > > *Raúl Kripalani* > PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and > Messaging Engineer > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk >
