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/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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
