Brane, LGPL is optional.
The convenience binary release of Apache Ignite on the website does not have any LGPL libraries. The official source code release can be built with 2 options: LGPL "on" or "off". I initially thought that it should be "on" by default, but now I think it should be turned "off" by default because if someone builds it, we want them to safely redistribute it. I think this is what we previously decided anyway, so no change. D. On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01.07.2015 21:07, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > >>>>> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL > >>>>> turned on. > >>>>> > >>>>> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our > >>>> users > >>>>> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite > >>>>> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it > >>>> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only > >> source > >>>> code. > >>> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite > binary > >>> release on the Apache Ignite website? > >> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries" > >> not a > >> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again). > >> > > We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them > > "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well. > > I'm more concerned with your assertion that "users should build with > LGPL libraries included." This implies that the LGPL bits are /not/ > optional for full functionality, which is what I've been told several > times in the past. > > "Optional" means the code works and is fully functional without the > dependency. If you can't achieve that with Ignite without the LGPL bits, > then you have a moderately huge rewrite ahead of you before you can even > think of graduating, not least because you seem to view the ASF policies > as something to work around, not something to conform to. > > So can I have a straight answer? Was all this optional LGPL talk just to > fit into ASF policies, or is it actually true? And let's clear this up > here please before the peanut gallery of the IPMC starts voicing 573 > different opinions. > > -- Brane > >
