Igniters, please advise on it. Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter of a build being provided.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogra...@gridgain.com> wrote: > 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 < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > PR updated > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > alexander.fedot...@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 <dma...@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 <dma...@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.fedot...@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.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/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 < > > >> >>>>>>>> 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. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
