moving to geronimo JCache jar
Locked
12
12
 
|
Igniters,
Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the JSR107? http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as it is licensed under Apache 2.0. D. |
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
|
Folks,
I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? -Val On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Igniters, > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the JSR107? > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as it is > licensed under Apache 2.0. > > D. > |
|
|
I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real
difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever geronimo project updates the JAR. D. On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < [hidden email]> wrote: > Folks, > > I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to > wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > -Val > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Igniters, > > > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the JSR107? > > > > > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as it > is > > licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > > D. > > > |
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
|
|
Guys,
I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the new one though). Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to Geronimo? [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 -Val On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > geronimo project updates the JAR. > > D. > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > Folks, > > > > I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to > > wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > > -Val > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the JSR107? > > > > > > > > > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > > > We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as > it > > is > > > licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > > > > D. > > > > > > |
|
|
We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next
release. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < [hidden email]> wrote: > Guys, > > I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months > ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still > has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the > new one though). > > Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to Geronimo? > > [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > -Val > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > > difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > > geronimo project updates the JAR. > > > > D. > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to > > > wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > > > > -Val > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > [hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > JSR107? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > > > > > We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as > > it > > > is > > > > licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > > > > > > D. > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? — Denis > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next > release. > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Guys, >> >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several months >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 still >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to the >> new one though). >> >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to Geronimo? >> >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >> >> -Val >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever >>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going to >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >>>> >>>> -Val >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> [hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Igniters, >>>>> >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >> JSR107? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>> >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as >>> it >>>> is >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been
discussed. On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? > > — > Denis > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the next > > release. > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Guys, > >> > >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several > months > >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 > still > >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to > the > >> new one though). > >> > >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to > Geronimo? > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > >> > >> -Val > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > >>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > >>> > >>> D. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Folks, > >>>> > >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going > to > >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > >>>> > >>>> -Val > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>> [hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Igniters, > >>>>> > >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > >> JSR107? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >>>>> > >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, as > >>> it > >>>> is > >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > >>>>> > >>>>> D. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > |
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
|
|
This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache.
org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility reasons. However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm not sure that licensing issue still exists. -Val On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been > discussed. > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? > > > > — > > Denis > > > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the > next > > > release. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > >> Guys, > > >> > > >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several > > months > > >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and 1.0.0 > > still > > >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing to > > the > > >> new one though). > > >> > > >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to > > Geronimo? > > >> > > >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > >> > > >> -Val > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > [hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > > >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > > >>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > > >>> > > >>> D. > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Folks, > > >>>> > > >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we going > > to > > >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > >>>> > > >>>> -Val > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >>> [hidden email]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Igniters, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > > >> JSR107? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next release, > as > > >>> it > > >>>> is > > >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> D. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > |
|
|
Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache
2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < [hidden email]> wrote: > This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. > org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility > reasons. > > However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm > not sure that licensing issue still exists. > > -Val > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been > > discussed. > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > > > > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? > > > > > > — > > > Denis > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the > > next > > > > release. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Guys, > > > >> > > > >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several > > > months > > > >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and > 1.0.0 > > > still > > > >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing > to > > > the > > > >> new one though). > > > >> > > > >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to > > > Geronimo? > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > > >> > > > >> -Val > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > [hidden email]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > > > >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > > > >>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > > > >>> > > > >>> D. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Folks, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we > going > > > to > > > >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -Val > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >>> [hidden email]> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Igniters, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > > > >> JSR107? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > > >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next > release, > > as > > > >>> it > > > >>>> is > > > >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> D. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > |
|
Hi,
I don't think that we need to do something special, since the license link currently points at the location of the updated license. From my understanding, it should work out of thin air. Regards, Alexander 25 янв. 2017 г. 7:24 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < [hidden email]> написал: > Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache > 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. > > org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility > > reasons. > > > > However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm > > not sure that licensing issue still exists. > > > > -Val > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been > > > discussed. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > > > > > > > Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to > 2.0? > > > > > > > > — > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > [hidden email]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the > > > next > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Guys, > > > > >> > > > > >> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 > several > > > > months > > > > >> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and > > 1.0.0 > > > > still > > > > >> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing > > to > > > > the > > > > >> new one though). > > > > >> > > > > >> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to > > > > Geronimo? > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > > > >> > > > > >> -Val > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no > real > > > > >>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 > whenever > > > > >>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> D. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > > >>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Folks, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we > > going > > > > to > > > > >>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -Val > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > > >>> [hidden email]> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Igniters, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > > > > >> JSR107? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > > > >>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next > > release, > > > as > > > > >>> it > > > > >>>> is > > > > >>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> D. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Kind regards,
Alexander |
|
|
In reply to this post by dsetrakyan
We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the following at the moment
// ------------------------------------------------------------------ // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this distribution // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. // ------------------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================================== For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 ============================================================================== This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 — Denis > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache > 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility >> reasons. >> >> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm >> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >> >> -Val >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been >>> discussed. >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >>>> >>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? >>>> >>>> — >>>> Denis >>>> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the >>> next >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Guys, >>>>>> >>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several >>>> months >>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >> 1.0.0 >>>> still >>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing >> to >>>> the >>>>>> new one though). >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to >>>> Geronimo? >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >>>>>> >>>>>> -Val >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever >>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we >> going >>>> to >>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >>>>>> JSR107? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >> release, >>> as >>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> |
|
|
Hi all,
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/ ignite/pull/1475 . On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the > following at the moment > > // ------------------------------------------------------------------ > // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this > distribution > // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. > // ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > ================== > For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) > javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 > ============================================================ > ================== > This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: > JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For > details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. > > > Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 > > — > Denis > > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache > > 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. > >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for compatibility > >> reasons. > >> > >> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so I'm > >> not sure that licensing issue still exists. > >> > >> -Val > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been > >>> discussed. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > >>>> > >>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to 2.0? > >>>> > >>>> — > >>>> Denis > >>>> > >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> [hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the > >>> next > >>>>> release. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several > >>>> months > >>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and > >> 1.0.0 > >>>> still > >>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing > >> to > >>>> the > >>>>>> new one though). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to > >>>> Geronimo? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Val > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real > >>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 whenever > >>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> D. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Folks, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we > >> going > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -Val > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Igniters, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the > >>>>>> JSR107? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > >>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next > >> release, > >>> as > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> D. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Kind regards,
Alexander |
|
|
Hi,
Created Upsource review for the subject: http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < [hidden email]> wrote: > Hi all, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i > gnite/pull/1475 . > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the >> following at the moment >> >> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this >> distribution >> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. >> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ============================================================ >> ================== >> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) >> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 >> ============================================================ >> ================== >> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: >> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For >> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. >> >> >> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira >> /browse/IGNITE-3793 >> >> — >> Denis >> > On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache >> > 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> > [hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> >> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. >> >> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for >> compatibility >> >> reasons. >> >> >> >> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so >> I'm >> >> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >> >> >> >> -Val >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been >> >>> discussed. >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >> >>>> >> >>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to >> 2.0? >> >>>> >> >>>> — >> >>>> Denis >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >> [hidden email]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the >> >>> next >> >>>>> release. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Guys, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several >> >>>> months >> >>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >> >> 1.0.0 >> >>>> still >> >>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing >> >> to >> >>>> the >> >>>>>> new one though). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to >> >>>> Geronimo? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >> >>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 >> whenever >> >>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> D. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Folks, >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we >> >> going >> >>>> to >> >>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Igniters, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >> >>>>>> JSR107? >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >> >>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >> >> release, >> >>> as >> >>>>>>> it >> >>>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> D. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Kind regards,
Alexander |
|
|
Alexander, thanks!
I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. — Denis > On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Created Upsource review for the subject: > http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. >> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i >> gnite/pull/1475 . >> >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the >>> following at the moment >>> >>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this >>> distribution >>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. >>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> ================== >>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) >>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 >>> ============================================================ >>> ================== >>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: >>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For >>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. >>> >>> >>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira >>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 >>> >>> — >>> Denis >>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache >>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. >>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for >>> compatibility >>>>> reasons. >>>>> >>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so >>> I'm >>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >>>>> >>>>> -Val >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>> [hidden email]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been >>>>>> discussed. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to >>> 2.0? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> — >>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the >>>>>> next >>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several >>>>>>> months >>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >>>>> 1.0.0 >>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing >>>>> to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> new one though). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to >>>>>>> Geronimo? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 >>> whenever >>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we >>>>> going >>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >>>>>>>>> JSR107? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >>>>> release, >>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Alexander. >> > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. |
|
|
Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource.
However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it contains licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are available under Apache 2.0. Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the reason. — Denis > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Alexander, thanks! > > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > > — > Denis > >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Created Upsource review for the subject: >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i >>> gnite/pull/1475 . >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is the >>>> following at the moment >>>> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of this >>>> distribution >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> ================== >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 >>>> ============================================================ >>>> ================== >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. For >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. >>>> >>>> >>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 >>>> >>>> — >>>> Denis >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed Apache >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for >>>> compatibility >>>>>> reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so >>>> I'm >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Val >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already been >>>>>>> discussed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to >>>> 2.0? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in the >>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 several >>>>>>>> months >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >>>>>> 1.0.0 >>>>>>>> still >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is pointing >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> new one though). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move to >>>>>>>> Geronimo? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no real >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 >>>> whenever >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we >>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as the >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >>>>>> release, >>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kind regards, >>> Alexander. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind regards, >> Alexander. > |
ignite-core-licenses.txt (2K) |
|
Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged.
It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes for dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>. I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. > > However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of > ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it contains > licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists > shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are available > under Apache 2.0. > > Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the reason. > > > — > Denis > > > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Alexander, thanks! > > > > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > > > > — > > Denis > > > >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Created Upsource review for the subject: > >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR https://github.com/apache/i > >>> gnite/pull/1475 . > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is > the > >>>> following at the moment > >>>> > >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of > this > >>>> distribution > >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. > >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>> ============================================================ > >>>> ================== > >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) > >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 > >>>> ============================================================ > >>>> ================== > >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: > >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. > For > >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/ > jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira > >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 > >>>> > >>>> — > >>>> Denis > >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > [hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed > Apache > >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache. > >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for > >>>> compatibility > >>>>>> reasons. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, so > >>>> I'm > >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Val > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already > been > >>>>>>> discussed. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to > >>>> 2.0? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> — > >>>>>>>> Denis > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in > the > >>>>>>> next > >>>>>>>>> release. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 > several > >>>>>>>> months > >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and > >>>>>> 1.0.0 > >>>>>>>> still > >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is > pointing > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> new one though). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move > to > >>>>>>>> Geronimo? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/ > LICENSE.txt > >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache- > api/1.0.0 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -Val > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no > real > >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 > >>>> whenever > >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> D. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are we > >>>>>> going > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as > the > >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next > >>>>>> release, > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Alexander. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kind regards, > >> Alexander. > > > > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Kind regards,
Alexander |
|
|
PR updated
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < [hidden email]> wrote: > Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. > It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes for > dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the > point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>. > I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR. > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. >> >> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of >> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it contains >> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists >> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are available >> under Apache 2.0. >> >> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the >> reason. >> >> >> — >> Denis >> >> >> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > Alexander, thanks! >> > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. >> > >> > — >> > Denis >> > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Created Upsource review for the subject: >> >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < >> >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. >> >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR >> https://github.com/apache/i >> >>> gnite/pull/1475 . >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which is >> the >> >>>> following at the moment >> >>>> >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------ >> >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of >> this >> >>>> distribution >> >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------ >> >>>> >> >>>> ============================================================ >> >>>> ================== >> >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) >> >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 >> >>>> ============================================================ >> >>>> ================== >> >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: >> >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License. >> For >> >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/ >> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira >> >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 >> >>>> >> >>>> — >> >>>> Denis >> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> [hidden email]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed >> Apache >> >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: https://issues.apache >> . >> >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for >> >>>> compatibility >> >>>>>> reasons. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, >> so >> >>>> I'm >> >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has already >> been >> >>>>>>> discussed. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added to >> >>>> 2.0? >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> — >> >>>>>>>> Denis >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library in >> the >> >>>>>>> next >> >>>>>>>>> release. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 >> several >> >>>>>>>> months >> >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license and >> >>>>>> 1.0.0 >> >>>>>>>> still >> >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is >> pointing >> >>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>> the >> >>>>>>>>>> new one though). >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to move >> to >> >>>>>>>> Geronimo? >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1 >> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif >> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is no >> real >> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 >> >>>> whenever >> >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> D. >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are >> we >> >>>>>> going >> >>>>>>>> to >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same as >> the >> >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. >> >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next >> >>>>>> release, >> >>>>>>> as >> >>>>>>>>>>> it >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Kind regards, >> >>> Alexander. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Alexander. >> > >> >> >> > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Kind regards,
Alexander |
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
|
|
Guys,
I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :) On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < [hidden email]> wrote: > PR updated > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. > > It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes > for > > dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the > > point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>. > > I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. > >> > >> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of > >> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it contains > >> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists > >> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are available > >> under Apache 2.0. > >> > >> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the > >> reason. > >> > >> > >> — > >> Denis > >> > >> > >> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Alexander, thanks! > >> > > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > >> > > >> > — > >> > Denis > >> > > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> Created Upsource review for the subject: > >> >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > >> >> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Hi all, > >> >>> > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > >> >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR > >> https://github.com/apache/i > >> >>> gnite/pull/1475 . > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which > is > >> the > >> >>>> following at the moment > >> >>>> > >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ------ > >> >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part of > >> this > >> >>>> distribution > >> >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. > >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> ------ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ============================================================ > >> >>>> ================== > >> >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) > >> >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 > >> >>>> ============================================================ > >> >>>> ================== > >> >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under a: > >> >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification > License. > >> For > >> >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/ > >> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira > >> >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> — > >> >>>> Denis > >> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> [hidden email]> > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed > >> Apache > >> >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: > https://issues.apache > >> . > >> >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for > >> >>>> compatibility > >> >>>>>> reasons. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache 2.0, > >> so > >> >>>> I'm > >> >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> -Val > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> >>>> [hidden email]> > >> >>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has > already > >> been > >> >>>>>>> discussed. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email] > > > >> >>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is added > to > >> >>>> 2.0? > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> — > >> >>>>>>>> Denis > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library > in > >> the > >> >>>>>>> next > >> >>>>>>>>> release. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 > >> several > >> >>>>>>>> months > >> >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license > and > >> >>>>>> 1.0.0 > >> >>>>>>>> still > >> >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is > >> pointing > >> >>>>>> to > >> >>>>>>>> the > >> >>>>>>>>>> new one though). > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to > move > >> to > >> >>>>>>>> Geronimo? > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1 > >> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif > >> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> -Val > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is > no > >> real > >> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 > >> >>>> whenever > >> >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> D. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. Are > >> we > >> >>>>>> going > >> >>>>>>>> to > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same > as > >> the > >> >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > >> >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting next > >> >>>>>> release, > >> >>>>>>> as > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Kind regards, > >> >>> Alexander. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> Alexander. > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. > |
|
|
Igniters, please advise on it.
Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter of a build being provided. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Guys, > > I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with > "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. > We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :) > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > PR updated > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. > > > It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license notes > > for > > > dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to the > > > point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>. > > > I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > >> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. > > >> > > >> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of > > >> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it > contains > > >> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact lists > > >> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are > available > > >> under Apache 2.0. > > >> > > >> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the > > >> reason. > > >> > > >> > > >> — > > >> Denis > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Alexander, thanks! > > >> > > > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > > >> > > > >> > — > > >> > Denis > > >> > > > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi, > > >> >> > > >> >> Created Upsource review for the subject: > > >> >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > > >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > > >> >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>> Hi all, > > >> >>> > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > > >> >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR > > >> https://github.com/apache/i > > >> >>> gnite/pull/1475 . > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file which > > is > > >> the > > >> >>>> following at the moment > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> ------ > > >> >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part > of > > >> this > > >> >>>> distribution > > >> >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. > > >> >>>> // ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> ------ > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> ============================================================ > > >> >>>> ================== > > >> >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) > > >> >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 > > >> >>>> ============================================================ > > >> >>>> ================== > > >> >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available under > a: > > >> >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification > > License. > > >> For > > >> >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/ > > >> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Updated this ticket description: https://issues.apache.org/jira > > >> >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> — > > >> >>>> Denis > > >> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> [hidden email]> > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is indeed > > >> Apache > > >> >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > >> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: > > https://issues.apache > > >> . > > >> >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for > > >> >>>> compatibility > > >> >>>>>> reasons. > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache > 2.0, > > >> so > > >> >>>> I'm > > >> >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> -Val > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>>> [hidden email]> > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has > > already > > >> been > > >> >>>>>>> discussed. > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda < > [hidden email] > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is closed > > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is > added > > to > > >> >>>> 2.0? > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> — > > >> >>>>>>>> Denis > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache library > > in > > >> the > > >> >>>>>>> next > > >> >>>>>>>>> release. > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > >> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache 2.0 > > >> several > > >> >>>>>>>> months > > >> >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new license > > and > > >> >>>>>> 1.0.0 > > >> >>>>>>>> still > > >> >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is > > >> pointing > > >> >>>>>> to > > >> >>>>>>>> the > > >> >>>>>>>>>> new one though). > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to > > move > > >> to > > >> >>>>>>>> Geronimo? > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1 > > >> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif > > >> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> -Val > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there is > > no > > >> real > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to 1.0 > > >> >>>> whenever > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> D. > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. > Are > > >> we > > >> >>>>>> going > > >> >>>>>>>> to > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the same > > as > > >> the > > >> >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting > next > > >> >>>>>> release, > > >> >>>>>>> as > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -- > > >> >>> Kind regards, > > >> >>> Alexander. > > >> >>> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -- > > >> >> Kind regards, > > >> >> Alexander. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > > > -- Kind regards, Alexander.
Kind regards,
Alexander |
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
|
|
Anton,
Can you please clarify what is the issue? I'm not sure I understand. -Val On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov < [hidden email]> wrote: > Igniters, please advise on it. > > Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version > 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via > Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at > JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter > of a build being provided. > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email] > > > wrote: > > > Guys, > > > > I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with > > "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. > > We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated :) > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > PR updated > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Denis, it is my mistake to leave the header unchanged. > > > > It should be fixed because from now on the generation of license > notes > > > for > > > > dependencies under Apache Software License is enabled according to > the > > > > point 3 in JIRA <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793>. > > > > I'll fix it and your notes in Upsource and update the PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Alexander, provided review notes in the Upsource. > > > >> > > > >> However, I’m still a bit concerned about the content of > > > >> ignite-core-licenses.txt (see attached). The file says that it > > contains > > > >> licenses different from the Apache Software license but in fact > lists > > > >> shmem, Intellij IDEA annotations and JSR 107 all of which are > > available > > > >> under Apache 2.0. > > > >> > > > >> Why is this so? Can someone explain? Dmitriy, probable you know the > > > >> reason. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> — > > > >> Denis > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Jan 30, 2017, at 12:19 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > Alexander, thanks! > > > >> > > > > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > > > >> > > > > >> > — > > > >> > Denis > > > >> > > > > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > > > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Hi, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Created Upsource review for the subject: > > > >> >> http://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-82 > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > > > >> >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >>> Hi all, > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793 is completed. > > > >> >>> Kindly take a look at the corresponding PR > > > >> https://github.com/apache/i > > > >> >>> gnite/pull/1475 . > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 8:04 PM, Denis Magda <[hidden email] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>>> We need to replace content of ignite-core-licenses.txt file > which > > > is > > > >> the > > > >> >>>> following at the moment > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> // ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > > >> ------ > > > >> >>>> // List of ignite-core module's dependencies provided as a part > > of > > > >> this > > > >> >>>> distribution > > > >> >>>> // which licenses differ from Apache Software License. > > > >> >>>> // ------------------------------ > ------------------------------ > > > >> ------ > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> ============================================================ > > > >> >>>> ================== > > > >> >>>> For JSR107 API and SPI (https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec) > > > >> >>>> javax.cache:cache-api:jar:1.0.0 > > > >> >>>> ============================================================ > > > >> >>>> ================== > > > >> >>>> This product bundles JSR107 API and SPI which is available > under > > a: > > > >> >>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification > > > License. > > > >> For > > > >> >>>> details, see https://raw.github.com/jsr107/ > > > >> jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt. > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> Updated this ticket description: > https://issues.apache.org/jira > > > >> >>>> /browse/IGNITE-3793 > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> — > > > >> >>>> Denis > > > >> >>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >> [hidden email]> > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> Awesome, you are right. I just checked and the license is > indeed > > > >> Apache > > > >> >>>>> 2.0. Is there anything we need to do at all right now? > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > >> >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> This change was incorporated in this ticket: > > > https://issues.apache > > > >> . > > > >> >>>>>> org/jira/browse/IGNITE-3793. We can't do it before 2.0 for > > > >> >>>> compatibility > > > >> >>>>>> reasons. > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> However, my point is that they changed the license to Apache > > 2.0, > > > >> so > > > >> >>>> I'm > > > >> >>>>>> not sure that licensing issue still exists. > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> -Val > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >> >>>> [hidden email]> > > > >> >>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> Any reason why we need to wait for 2.0? Sorry if this has > > > already > > > >> been > > > >> >>>>>>> discussed. > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Denis Magda < > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > >> >>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Yes, we planned to do that in 2.0. Val, the ticket is > closed > > > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949 < > > > >> >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2949> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> Do we need to reopen it making sure that geronimo jar is > > added > > > to > > > >> >>>> 2.0? > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> — > > > >> >>>>>>>> Denis > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:36 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >> >>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >> >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> We absolutely need to upgrade to the geronimo jcache > library > > > in > > > >> the > > > >> >>>>>>> next > > > >> >>>>>>>>> release. > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > >> >>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Guys, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> I noticed that the JCache license was updated to Apache > 2.0 > > > >> several > > > >> >>>>>>>> months > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> ago [1]. However, there was no release with the new > license > > > and > > > >> >>>>>> 1.0.0 > > > >> >>>>>>>> still > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> has the old license name in the POM file [2] (the link is > > > >> pointing > > > >> >>>>>> to > > > >> >>>>>>>> the > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> new one though). > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Is this enough from legal standpoint? Do we still need to > > > move > > > >> to > > > >> >>>>>>>> Geronimo? > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/jsr107/jsr1 > > > >> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif > > > >> act/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> -Val > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >> >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> I would say that we are OK with alpha for now, as there > is > > > no > > > >> real > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> difference between 1.0-alpha and 1.0. We can switch to > 1.0 > > > >> >>>> whenever > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> geronimo project updates the JAR. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> D. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Valentin Kulichenko < > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Folks, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I tried to switch to Geronimo and it works fine for me. > > Are > > > >> we > > > >> >>>>>> going > > > >> >>>>>>>> to > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wait for version 1.0, or we're OK with alpha? > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Val > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if the Geronimo JCache jar is the > same > > > as > > > >> the > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> JSR107? > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We should try switching to the Geronimo JAR starting > > next > > > >> >>>>>> release, > > > >> >>>>>>> as > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> it > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> is > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> licensed under Apache 2.0. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> D. > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>>> > > > >> >>>>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> -- > > > >> >>> Kind regards, > > > >> >>> Alexander. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> -- > > > >> >> Kind regards, > > > >> >> Alexander. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Kind regards, > > > Alexander. > > > > > > > > > -- > Kind regards, > Alexander. > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |