You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Martyn Taylor <mt...@redhat.com> on 2016/01/04 10:59:40 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0
All,
Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO.
The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context
of Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise
there is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and
perhaps contradictions between legal stances on Artemis and other
projects. But, given we've had the OK from several board members, I am
keen to go ahead and cut the next RC.
The legal discussion thread can be found here:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201512.mbox/%3C567BDDC1.8060805@redhat.com%3E
The next RC will have addressed the issues with binary inclusions in the
src release and also the great usability feedback provided by Claus
Ibsen. It should be with you very soon.
Regards
Martyn
On 24/12/15 12:01, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please
> follow the thread at the legal-discuss list.
>
> On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> I do not see what the issue is here. We are not *distributing* any
>> LGPL licensed library. We simply use it, if it is available. As
>> Hiram said, how does this differ from relying on bash or win32?
>>
>> To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>
>> ""
>> CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY ON COMPONENTS UNDER PROHIBITED LICENSES?¶
>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited>
>>
>> Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the
>> previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the
>> component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's
>> licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
>> ""
>>
>> I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to
>> proactively enable the use of libaio. The ASYNCIO journal is what we
>> recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance
>> on persisted messages, for this reason it should be default. I agree
>> with Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user
>> experience, as the default configuration is now considerably slower.
>> Out of the box configuration should in my opinion be as close to
>> optimum as we can. Having a user read the documentation, understand
>> what ASYNCIO is, what benefits it has and then make a decision to
>> enable it, is more effort.
>>
>> Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against
>> licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a
>> definitive answer.
>>
>> Regards
>> Martyn
>>
>> On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your
>>> system. Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
>>> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the
>>>> broker “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I
>>>> specifically have to configure something (pass a flag, edit a
>>>> config file, etc…) to enable use if the LGPL library, then fine.
>>>> However, if it’s something that occurs completely automatically
>>>> without the user even knowing that it’s occurring, then I have a
>>>> major problem with it. It needs to be something that the user has
>>>> to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
>>>>> open a
>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament
>>>>>> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>> discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
>>>>>>> release, would
>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>>>>> email
>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue
>>>>>> we had
>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0
Posted by Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb...@nanthrax.net>.
Great, thanks for the update !
Regards
JB
On 01/04/2016 10:59 AM, Martyn Taylor wrote:
> All,
>
> Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO.
>
> The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context
> of Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise
> there is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and
> perhaps contradictions between legal stances on Artemis and other
> projects. But, given we've had the OK from several board members, I am
> keen to go ahead and cut the next RC.
>
> The legal discussion thread can be found here:
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201512.mbox/%3C567BDDC1.8060805@redhat.com%3E
>
>
> The next RC will have addressed the issues with binary inclusions in the
> src release and also the great usability feedback provided by Claus
> Ibsen. It should be with you very soon.
>
> Regards
> Martyn
>
> On 24/12/15 12:01, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please
>> follow the thread at the legal-discuss list.
>>
>> On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> I do not see what the issue is here. We are not *distributing* any
>>> LGPL licensed library. We simply use it, if it is available. As
>>> Hiram said, how does this differ from relying on bash or win32?
>>>
>>> To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> ""
>>> CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY ON COMPONENTS UNDER PROHIBITED LICENSES?¶
>>> <http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited>
>>>
>>> Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the
>>> previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the
>>> component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's
>>> licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
>>> ""
>>>
>>> I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to
>>> proactively enable the use of libaio. The ASYNCIO journal is what we
>>> recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance
>>> on persisted messages, for this reason it should be default. I agree
>>> with Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user
>>> experience, as the default configuration is now considerably slower.
>>> Out of the box configuration should in my opinion be as close to
>>> optimum as we can. Having a user read the documentation, understand
>>> what ASYNCIO is, what benefits it has and then make a decision to
>>> enable it, is more effort.
>>>
>>> Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against
>>> licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a
>>> definitive answer.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your
>>>> system. Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
>>>> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the
>>>>> broker “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I
>>>>> specifically have to configure something (pass a flag, edit a
>>>>> config file, etc…) to enable use if the LGPL library, then fine.
>>>>> However, if it’s something that occurs completely automatically
>>>>> without the user even knowing that it’s occurring, then I have a
>>>>> major problem with it. It needs to be something that the user has
>>>>> to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
>>>>>> open a
>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament
>>>>>>> <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
>>>>>>>> legal
>>>>>>>> discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
>>>>>>>> release, would
>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue
>>>>>>> we had
>>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbonofre@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com
Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Awesome news!
On Jan 4, 2016 05:00, "Martyn Taylor" <mt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO.
>
> The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context of
> Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise there
> is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and perhaps
> contradictions between legal stances on Artemis and other projects. But,
> given we've had the OK from several board members, I am keen to go ahead
> and cut the next RC.
>
> The legal discussion thread can be found here:
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201512.mbox/%3C567BDDC1.8060805@redhat.com%3E
>
> The next RC will have addressed the issues with binary inclusions in the
> src release and also the great usability feedback provided by Claus Ibsen.
> It should be with you very soon.
>
> Regards
> Martyn
>
> On 24/12/15 12:01, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>
>> I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please
>> follow the thread at the legal-discuss list.
>>
>> On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> I do not see what the issue is here. We are not *distributing* any LGPL
>>> licensed library. We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram said, how
>>> does this differ from relying on bash or win32?
>>>
>>> To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>>>
>>> ""
>>> CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY ON COMPONENTS UNDER PROHIBITED LICENSES?¶ <
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited>
>>>
>>> Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the
>>> previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the
>>> component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. For
>>> example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
>>> ""
>>>
>>> I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to
>>> proactively enable the use of libaio. The ASYNCIO journal is what we
>>> recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance on
>>> persisted messages, for this reason it should be default. I agree with
>>> Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user experience, as the
>>> default configuration is now considerably slower. Out of the box
>>> configuration should in my opinion be as close to optimum as we can.
>>> Having a user read the documentation, understand what ASYNCIO is, what
>>> benefits it has and then make a decision to enable it, is more effort.
>>>
>>> Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against
>>> licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a
>>> definitive answer.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Martyn
>>>
>>> On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your
>>>> system. Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
>>>> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
>>>>> “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not? If I specifically have to
>>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use
>>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine. However, if it’s something that occurs
>>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s occurring,
>>>>> then I have a major problem with it. It needs to be something that the
>>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>> clebert.suconic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
>>>>>>> johndament@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>>>>> discuss? If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>>>>>> email
>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> dkulp@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>