Guys, JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all the places: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml>
Even if you go to Maven https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 <https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0> and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following License URL JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt> But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows outdated information. So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product that uses JSR 107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR already conforms to Apache 2.0. — Denis > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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.
