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.fedot...@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 <dma...@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 <dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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 < >> dsetrak...@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 <dma...@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 < >> >> dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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/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 < >> >>>> dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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 < >> >>>>>>> dsetrak...@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.
