On 01.07.2015 21:07, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <c...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote: >>>>> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL >>>>> turned on. >>>>> >>>>> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our >>>> users >>>>> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite >>>>> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it >>>> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only >> source >>>> code. >>> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite binary >>> release on the Apache Ignite website? >> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries" >> not a >> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again). >> > We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them > "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.
I'm more concerned with your assertion that "users should build with LGPL libraries included." This implies that the LGPL bits are /not/ optional for full functionality, which is what I've been told several times in the past. "Optional" means the code works and is fully functional without the dependency. If you can't achieve that with Ignite without the LGPL bits, then you have a moderately huge rewrite ahead of you before you can even think of graduating, not least because you seem to view the ASF policies as something to work around, not something to conform to. So can I have a straight answer? Was all this optional LGPL talk just to fit into ASF policies, or is it actually true? And let's clear this up here please before the peanut gallery of the IPMC starts voicing 573 different opinions. -- Brane
