On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 07:51AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28.03.2015 06:41, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:32PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > >> (restarting a new vote for 1.0.0 after having fixed the LGPL issue that > > was > > >> raised during the previous vote today) > > >> > > >> I have uploaded the new 1.0.0 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. Added the ability to build a binary ZIP file without LGPL > > dependencies. > > >> 2. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue. > > >> 3. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > >> 4. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC. > > >> > > >> To build a binary release from source run: > > >> > > >> # With LGPL dependencies > > >> mvn clean package -DskipTests > > >> > > >> # Without LGPL dependencies > > >> mvn clean package -DskipTests -P-lgpl,-examples > > > Would it make sense to turn off 'lgpl' by default? Perhaps doesn't have > > to be > > > addressed until next release, unless a re-spin will happen. > > > > These dependencies /have/ to be turned off by default, because otherwise > > it's too easy to build binaries that are not ALv2. Especially if that > > -P-lgpl is not documented anywhere. > > > > To my knowledge, the reason why LGPL is not allowed is because of its > redistribution conflicts with ALv2. If users download the source code > without LGPL in it, and then download the binaries for LGPL dependencies > themselves during the build, then there is no redistribution of LGPL > occurring and we should be OK. That's why the flag is turned on for the > users by default. > > The flag to turn LGPL off is *only* for us, so we can build our own > convenience binary which will be downloadable from the website. This binary > cannot and will not have LGPL because of redistribution issues.
That actually makes sense to me. Thanks for the explanation. The release scripts are switching this off explicitly, right? > Having said that, I simply wanted to explain our reasoning here. If you > feel strongly about this issue and want us to resubmit the release for a > vote with LGPL turned off by default, we can do that too.
