You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> on 2017/02/01 10:20:52 UTC
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
PR updated
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org> 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 <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Alexander, thanks!
>> >
>> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
>> >
>> > —
>> > Denis
>> >
>> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
>> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
>> 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 <
>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>> 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 <
>> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>>>> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
>> >>>> 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 <
>> >>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>> 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 <
>> >>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>> >>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Alexandr, thanks! I’ve merged your changes to the master branch.
—
Denis
> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:49 AM, Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and
> LICENSE_HADOOP too.
> Will update PR shortly.
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade.
>> We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>
>>
>> Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one
>>
>>> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
>>> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>>
>> and close the ticket.
>>
>> I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>
>>
>> —
>> Denis
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to
>> Maven:
>>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <
>> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
>>> However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new
>> license.
>>>
>>> When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update
>> the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite.
>> This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
>>>
>>> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
>>> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>>>
>>> and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
>>>
>>> Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
>>>
>>> —
>>> Denis
>>>
>>>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Denis,
>>>>
>>>> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml
>> <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
>>>> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
>>>> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>>>>
>>>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>>>>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
So, I suppose we should revert JSR107 license fixes in LICENSE_FABRIC and
LICENSE_HADOOP too.
Will update PR shortly.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade.
> We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>
>
> Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one
>
> > #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> > #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>
> and close the ticket.
>
> I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to
> Maven:
> > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
> > However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new
> license.
> >
> > When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update
> the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite.
> This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
> >
> > #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> > #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
> >
> > and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
> >
> > Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
> >
> > —
> > Denis
> >
> >> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Denis,
> >>
> >> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml
> <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
> >> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
> >> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
> >>
> >> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
> >>
> >> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> >>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
> >>
> >>
> >> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
> >
>
>
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Got more clarifications from the folks that driving the license upgrade. We need to wait until the process fully finishes:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333#issuecomment-277106702>
Considering this let’s merge the current changes reverting this one
> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
and close the ticket.
I opened a new one for JCache license upgrade tracking:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4649>
—
Denis
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:12 AM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to Maven:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
> However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new license.
>
> When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite. This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
>
> #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
> #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
>
> and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
>
> Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
>
> —
> Denis
>
>> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>>
>> Denis,
>>
>> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
>> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
>> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>>
>> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>>
>> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>>
>>
>> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
>
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Well, there is some minor work left to be done before pushing JSR 107 to Maven:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333>
However, it’s a matter of time since Oracle has already approved the new license.
When JSR 107 1.1.0 gets released in Maven we will be required to update the version in our dependencies and release a new version of Apache Ignite. This is why I don’t see any issue if leave this workaround for 1.9 release
#if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
#set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0” )
and remove it at the time when we will be upgrading to JSR 107 1.1.0.
Is there any other concern rather than code beauty?
—
Denis
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> Denis,
>
> As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> has
> version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
> Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
>
> Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
>
> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
>> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>
>
> and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
Re: moving to geronimo JCache jar
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
Val,
cache-api lib license at maven now looks like
JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt
and I see replacement at pull-request related to this thread
#if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") )
#set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0" )
and I don't like it :)
Denis,
As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml has
version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven.
Can we ask cache-api team to release it?
Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license
JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt
and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all
> the places:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml>
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml <
> https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml>
>
> Even if you go to Maven
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 <
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0>
>
> and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following
>
> License URL
> JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <
> https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
>
> But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows
> outdated information.
>
> So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product
> that uses JSR 107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR
> already conforms to Apache 2.0.
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
> avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > 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 <
> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> PR updated
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> >> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alexander, thanks!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> —
> >>>>>> Denis
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
> >>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> >>>>> 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 <
> >>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> dmagda@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
Posted by Denis Magda <dm...@apache.org>.
Guys,
JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all the places:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml>
https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt>
https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml <https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml>
Even if you go to Maven
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 <https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0>
and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following
License URL
JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt <https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt>
But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows outdated information.
So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product that uses JSR 107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR already conforms to Apache 2.0.
—
Denis
> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com> 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 <av...@gridgain.com>
> 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 <
>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> PR updated
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
>> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alexander, thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> —
>>>>>> Denis
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>>>>> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>> dmagda@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
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 <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <avinogradov@gridgain.com
> >
> 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 <
> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > PR updated
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> > 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Alexander, thanks!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > —
> > > >> > Denis
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> > > >> 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 <
> > > >> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>> 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 <
> > dmagda@apache.org
> > > >
> > > >> >>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
Posted by Alexander Fedotov <al...@gmail.com>.
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 <av...@gridgain.com>
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 <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > PR updated
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Alexander, thanks!
> > >> >
> > >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
> > >> >
> > >> > —
> > >> > Denis
> > >> >
> > >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> > >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
> > >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> > >> 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 <
> > >> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> >>>> 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 <
> > >> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>> 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 <
> dmagda@apache.org
> > >
> > >> >>>> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
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 <
alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> PR updated
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov <
> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org> 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 <dm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Alexander, thanks!
> >> >
> >> > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days.
> >> >
> >> > —
> >> > Denis
> >> >
> >> >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov <
> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <
> >> >> alexander.fedotoff@gmail.com> 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 <dm...@apache.org>
> >> 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 <
> >> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> >>>> 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 <
> >> >>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >> >>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>> 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 <dmagda@apache.org
> >
> >> >>>> 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 <
> >> >>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> >>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >> >>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> 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 <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> valentin.kulichenko@gmail.com> 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 <
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>