Good news, thanks for the update On Wednesday, March 11, 2015, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Never mind, I found the answer that GPL with CPE is not allowed. > > However, all classes under "org.apache.ignite.jdk8.backport" package have > also been released by Doug Lee to the public domain under "CC0 1.0 > Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication" with the following language: > ---- > *Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166* > *Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at* > *http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/>* > ---- > > I think we are OK. I will update the Notice file. > > D. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > I have a question. We actually do have some back-ported code from OpenJdk > > 8 which is licensed under GPL with CPE (Class Path Exception). Is it OK > to > > have a dependency on GPL w/ CPE in the source code or do we have to > remove > > it from the source code? > > > > D. > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > >> Brane, let me review the docs and get back to you. > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > >>> On 10.03.2015 22:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >>> > Brane, > >>> > > >>> > The RC1 was a legitimate Ignite release candidate as it was submitted > >>> for a > >>> > vote. Please let us know if there are certain documented guidelines > >>> here > >>> > that we are not aware of. > >>> > >>> It's all documented here: > >>> > >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > >>> > >>> Specifically, this is written *in bold* on that page: > >>> > >>> Do not include any links on the project website that might > encourage > >>> non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, > >>> release candidates, or any other similar package. > >>> > >>> It is fine to call a specific package a "release candidate" and even > >>> publish is as an ASF release under that name, but in the case of > >>> Ignite's RC1 and RC2, these are /not/ official releases because they > >>> have not been approved as such by the PPMC and IPMC. > >>> > >>> > Moreover, this RC1 zip archive provides users with the ability to > kick > >>> the > >>> > tires with Apache Ignite ahead of time, before the official 1.0 > >>> release is > >>> > out. I am not sure how removing it serves either community or user > >>> base of > >>> > the Ignite project. > >>> > >>> Then tell people how to fetch a tag or specific commit from the git > >>> repository, or simply how to clone a read-only (possibly shallow) copy. > >>> It definitely doesn't serve the Ignite community or user base to post > >>> confusing links to the web site.// > >>> > >>> > As a side note, we already have addressed all RC2 issues and are a > >>> couple > >>> > of days away from sending out RC3 for a vote, which will most likely > >>> become > >>> > an official Apache Ignite 1.0 release. It will be easier to just > >>> switch one > >>> > zip archive with another when that happens. > >>> > >>> You must realize that our release policy is not arbitrary and is driven > >>> by legal requirements. Even if RC3 is perfect, it will take at least a > >>> week to approve (vote on dev@ must run at least 72 hours, and the same > >>> again for the IPMC vote), so that's an extra week of confusing users > and > >>> violating ASF policies. Please remove the download link because I > really > >>> don't want to do that myself. > >>> > >>> > >>> While we're on the topic of RC3, I've been trying to send my comments > on > >>> RC2 twice to this list in the last couple days, but apparently they > >>> haven't come through ... I'll try again, hope for the best. > >>> > >>> -- Brane > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
