Raul, Yes to both questions. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Raul Kripalani <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>> >> >> >
