Hi, I don't think that we need to do something special, since the license link currently points at the location of the updated license. From my understanding, it should work out of thin air.
Regards, Alexander 25 янв. 2017 г. 7:24 AM пользователь "Dmitriy Setrakyan" < dsetrak...@apache.org> написал: > 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/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > > >> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/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. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
