Wonderful, thank you for raising the issue and bringing closure now! Keep the issues coming :)
Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:59 AM external-opensource-requests(mailer list) < external-opensource-reque...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hello Michael > > > > We do see the fix included in Lucene 9.6.0. > > Appreciate your prompt response and thank you so much for resolving the > issue! > > > > Regards, > > Open Source Request Team > > > > *From:* Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> > *Sent:* 11 May 2023 07:07 PM > *To:* external-opensource-requests(mailer list) < > external-opensource-reque...@cisco.com> > *Cc:* java-user@lucene.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: Info required on licensing of Lucene component > > > > Thank you Mike S for adding the 9.6.0 Milestone tag to the issue! > > > > I wonder if we are able to close an issue AND attach a milestone label in > a commit message? I tried to research a bit and didn't find anything > except all the synonyms for "closes": > https://docs.github.com/en/issues/tracking-your-work-with-issues/linking-a-pull-request-to-an-issue > > > > I'll start a separate thread ... > > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 12:28 PM Michael McCandless < > luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > That's a great question, and, looking through the GitHub PR that was > merged, it sure is hard to track down whether it was backported to 9.x and > exactly which release. > > > > In the Jira days we would have a clear "fix version" to make this clear. > How does one do this with GitHub issues? > > > > But digging in the commit logs, it looks to me like this fix will be > included in Lucene 9.6.x, the next feature release, which should be > released any day now (the release VOTE just passed yesterday). > > > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:01 AM external-opensource-requests(mailer list) > <external-opensource-reque...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hello Michael > > > > The thread https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12226 seems to be > Closed now and as per the updates to *Cleanup NOTICE.txt * > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12227 - JUnit is not packaged in a > Lucene release. > > But we can still see the Junit reference in Notices.txt file in maven for > lucene components, for example > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.lucene/lucene-queries/4.10.4 > and > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.lucene/lucene-backward-codecs/9.3.0 > > > > Hence, just wanted to confirm exactly which Lucene release is the > update/pull request applied to? > > > > > > Thanks, > > Open Source Request Team > > > > > > *From:* Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> > *Sent:* 06 April 2023 03:39 PM > *To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org; external-opensource-requests(mailer > list) <external-opensource-reque...@cisco.com> > *Subject:* Re: Info required on licensing of Lucene component > > > > > In that case, can you’ll update your source repo for Lucene to exclude > references to ‘junit’ from Notices.txt file since it is something which is > not part of distribution for Lucene. > > > > That sounds reasonable to me. I'll open an issue in our GitHub repo, but > IANAL and I'm not sure how to specifically proceed. > > > > I opened https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/12226 -- let's continue > discussion there? > > > Thanks for raising this Open Source Request Team at Cisco! > > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:58 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Lucene is licensed under the Apache license, just as it says in the > LICENSE file. junit is used for testing Lucene and is not > redistributed with it. Using Lucene in your code does not mean you are > using junit, except in some extremely philosophical sense. EG Lucene > developers may have developed Lucene using Windows on their laptops - > that doesn't mean you need a WIndows license to use Lucene. IANAL, so > you should ask yours - I'm sure someone at Cisco can help you sort > this out? > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:13 AM external-opensource-requests(mailer > list) <external-opensource-reque...@cisco.com.invalid> wrote: > > > > Hello Team > > > > I hope you are doing well!! > > > > This is regarding Lucene component licensing. > > The maven repo link > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.lucene/lucene-queries/4.10.4 > for lucene-queries 4.10.4 shows Apache 2.0 license associated with the > component. > > Also, the archive (lucene-queries-4.10.4-sources.jar) uploaded has a > LICENSE.txt file which has Apache 2.0 license, but it also includes a > NOTICE.txt file which shows JUnit (junit-4.10) licensed under the Common > Public License v. 1.0. But there is no code associated with Junit included > in the source archive (lucene-queries-4.10.4-sources.jar) file. > > > > In this case, since Common Public License 1.0 is more restrictive > compared to Apache 2.0, for our better understanding, can you clarify to > us on what is the actual Open Source license associated with the Lucene > component? > > > > Mentioning just two of the lucene components in mail as example for your > reference "lucene-backward-codecs 9.3.0" > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.lucene/lucene-backward-codecs/9.3.0 > > > > Looking forward to your reply. > > > > > > Thanks , > > Open Source Request Team > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >
