On Nov 2, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hibernate is just not apache compliant, im not for eclipselink since it > usage and behavior is error prone and harder to control + id like to stay > apache. > > Well stay openjpa i think. > > Btw this kind of discussion is generally useless. You would have had the > same about bval...one week of work and we got it. Definitely a useful discussion as people are going on what's been documented, which is nothing in this area. For other readers, Romain is correct, we can't ship Hibernate due to licensing restrictions documented here: - http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x see "Which licenses may NOT be included within Apache products?" We already support/ship EclipseLink, so the question is really about what will happen with OpenJPA. I certainly hope OpenJPA can be brought up to JPA 2.1 compliance. Challenge for the readers is IBM was the main contributor and has simply tired of carrying the load alone: - https://developer.ibm.com/wasdev/2014/05/28/eclipselink-jpa-provider-liberty-profile "we agreed it was better to join forces with the EclipseLink open source community than to be the primary (sole) developer in the OpenJPA community." This doesn't mean OpenJPA has to die, it just means if you believe in open source, now is the time to act on those beliefs. Three people in their spare time can do amazing things. -David
