Closing this vote until the LGPL issue is addressed (I know Valentin is working on it now).
D. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually, I think I have to revoke my earlier +1. Here's why - and I > appreciate Brane's insisting on this point: even if the source release > doesn't > include any unfriendly licensed code, there's no way right now for anyone > to > build an (L)GPL-free binary artifact. Hence, the moment binaries are put up > for download all issues mentioned earlier will hit us. > > Yes, it means that if someone chooses to get binaries from Ignite's ASF > website and wants to use hibernate - he will need to do an extra step and > get > these jars elsewhere (from a 3rd party entity or else). And that's in fact > why > I was speculating that it might be useful to have a script as a part of the > release to download them if a user wants to. Too bad there are software > licenses incompatible with each other. That's a fact we need to find a way > to > deal with. > > That said - I don't see any issues with the source artifact - that's just > build system that need a bit of tweaking. I am happy to help with the build > system changes, if you need my help at this point. > > Thanks, > Cos > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:32AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 28.03.2015 01:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > > Cos, > > > > > > My comments are below. > > > > > > However, can we proceed with the vote for this release and resolve it > in > > > the next release? The RC3, which is officially downloadable release > from > > > Ignite website also has this issue, among with some others, which we > are > > > actually addressing with this 1.0.0 release. > > > > Yes, and if I'd even considered that you'd ignore my mails[1] on the > > topic of not bundling optional dependencies and not building them from > > the source package unless the user explicitly requests them, then RC3 > > would not be released because I'd have looked at the build artefacts. > > > > So that's a -1 from me for this package until the build scripts are > > changed so that optional dependencies, especially those requiring LGPL, > > do *not* get built unless the user explicitly requires them; and the > > devnotes docs warn that if these optional libs are used, the > > distribution rights for the binaries are different than expected. > > > > Any individual or commercial entity can publish binaries with these > > optional dependencies enabled, as long as they *tell* people that the > > Apache License does not control the distribution rights for those > > binaries. It's fine to have a list of such binary distributors on the > > web site. But we must not make such binaries available from ASF > > infrastructure or mirrors. > > > > -- Brane > > > > [1] > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3C54FFCD68.6080901%40apache.org%3E > > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Another topic that I'd like to address before this gets into the final > > >> release. During the voting on RC3 (or even before) we have discussed > that > > >> bundling LGPL libs is a bad idea as it really _changes_ the > distribution > > >> license for the artifacts. Yet, I see that RC3 is (and perhaps 1.0 > will be > > >> as > > >> well) including some LGPL and EPL bits (Hibernate is one of the > examples). > > >> > > > We can host our optional LGPL modules at apache-extras: > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > > > However, EPL is OK: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-b > > > > > > > > >> I think those shouldn't be a part of binaries posted on ASF dist. As > an > > >> alternative, anyone providing their own binary archives can do it from > > >> their > > >> own servers. It would be a good practice though to warn users of what > they > > >> are > > >> getting into using the binaries under the aforementioned licenses. > > >> > > >> Am I making any sense? Thanks, > > >> Cos > > >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:13PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > >>> Guys, to start with: > > >>> - the format of md5 and sha1 files aren't Unix formats. It suppose > to be > > >>> > > >>> hash file-name > > >>> > > >>> e.g. > > >>> > > >>> % md5sum /etc/hosts > > >>> aa2af9fea577aaedb79056917a6453a9 /etc/hosts > > >>> > > >>> % sha1sum /etc/hosts > > >>> ee5a6f3e4a3c109114d236c90ca382397fb998fe /etc/hosts > > >>> > > >>> When sum-files have this format you can do things like > > >>> % md5sum -c file-name.md5 > > >>> > > >>> and get your file validated automatically. Let's fix it, please. > > >>> > > >>> Cos > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:07PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > >>>> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to: > > >>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ > > >>>> > > >>>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for > > >> RC3: > > >>>> 1. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue. > > >>>> 2. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > >>>> 3. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > >>>> > > >>>> To build a binary release from source run: > > >>>> mvn clean package -DskipTests > > >>>> > > >>>> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are > > >> available > > >>>> in DEVNOTES.txt file. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please start voting. > > >>>> > > >>>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 > > >>>> 0 - don't care either way > > >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 (explain why) > > >>>> > > >>>> D. > > >
