Incidentally, 1. Do we *fully* implement the JSR-107 specification? 2. Can we assert that we fully pass the TCK, and that we satisfy the requirements referenced by the the license in this regard?
@Edward – thanks for passing on the message from your legal dept. Cheers, Raúl. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]> wrote: > Edward, > > I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers > evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of > Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following > text: > > ————- > 2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. > Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, > non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license > (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, > subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have > covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent > Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the > Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) > does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name > Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java > interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than > those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being > implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including > satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such > Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing > license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No > license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, > modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use > rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no > right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade > names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted > hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or > registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other > countries. > ————— > > Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing > under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I > will post an update here in a few days. > > D. > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal >> department. >> Here is my understanding of the issue: Anyone who would like to use >> apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar. >> That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond >> the >> evaluation or implementation purposes. Hence apache-ignite or any other >> implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not >> be used beyond the evaluation. Here is a link to more details from the >> issue raised in jsr107 space: >> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 . Based on this >> discussion >> the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to >> Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use >> geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API. >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html >> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >
