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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alexander, thanks! > > > > I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > > > > — > > Denis > > > >> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > [email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>> 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 < > >>>>> [email protected]> 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 < > >>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>> 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 < > >>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 < > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 < > >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
