Guys, I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :)
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < [email protected]> wrote: > PR updated > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Alexander, thanks! > >> > > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > >> > > >> > — > >> > Denis > >> > > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > >> [email protected]> 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 < > >> >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > >> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> >>>> 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 < > >> >>>>> [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/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 < > >> >>>>>>>> [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. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Kind regards, > >> >>> Alexander. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> Alexander. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. >
