Val, cache-api lib license at maven now looks like
JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License > https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt and I see replacement at pull-request related to this thread #if ( $license.name.contains("JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review") ) #set( $licenseName = "Apache License, Version 2.0" ) and I don't like it :) Denis, As you can see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml has version 1.*1*.0-SNAPSHOT and it's just not released at maven. Can we ask cache-api team to release it? Anyways, I see no issues here, we just have to keep current license JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License > https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt and wait for cache-api 1.*1*.0 release. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > Guys, > > JSR 107 spec as well as the reference implementation were updated in all > the places: > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt < > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt> > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml < > https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/pom.xml> > https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt < > https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/LICENSE.txt> > https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml < > https://github.com/jsr107/RI/blob/master/pom.xml> > > Even if you go to Maven > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0 < > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/javax.cache/cache-api/1.0.0> > > and scroll down to Licenses section then you will see the following > > License URL > JSR-000107 JCACHE 2.9 Public Review - Updated Specification License > https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt < > https://raw.github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/master/LICENSE.txt> > > But if anyone clicks on the link he will see that, in fact, Maven shows > outdated information. > > So, it’s Maven’s issue not ours. It might be fixed soon. We as a product > that uses JSR 107 are free to claim in our license files that this JSR > already conforms to Apache 2.0. > > — > Denis > > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:08 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Igniters, please advise on it. > > > > Also, does anyone know whether it's allowable by Apache License, Version > > 2.0 to create a custom build and provide it via > > Nexus, Artifactory, you name it. Currently, both the license and POM at > > JSR107 GitHub are conformant, so it's just a matter > > of a build being provided. > > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Anton Vinogradov < > avinogra...@gridgain.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Guys, > >> > >> I've checked review and I don't like replacement "JSR 107 .... " with > >> "Apache 2.0" even given they are equals. > >> We should provide licenses way it is, even in case it so sophisticated > :) > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > >> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> PR updated > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Alexander Fedotov < > >>> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> 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 <dma...@apache.org> > >> 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 <dma...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alexander, thanks! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I’ll review it in the nearest couple of days. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> — > >>>>>> Denis > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2017, at 5:10 AM, Alexander Fedotov < > >>>>> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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 < > >>>>>>> alexander.fedot...@gmail.com> 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 <dma...@apache.org> > >>>>> 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 < > >>>>> 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/jsr1 > >>>>> 07spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] http://mvnrepository.com/artif > >>>>> act/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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>>>>> Alexander. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Kind regards, > >>>>>>> Alexander. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> Alexander. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Alexander. > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Alexander. > >
