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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > > > 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 < > > > > [email protected]> 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/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > > >> > > > >> -Val > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > [email protected]> > > > >> 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 < > > > >>> [email protected]> 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 < > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > >>>> 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. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
