PR updated On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < alexander.fedot...@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 <dma...@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 <dma...@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.fedot...@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.fedot...@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 <dma...@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 < >> dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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 < >> >>>> dsetrak...@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 <dma...@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 < >> >>>>>> dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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 < >> >>>>>>>> dsetrak...@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.kuliche...@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 < >> >>>>>>>>>>> dsetrak...@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.
