ignite cache-api licensing issue

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
edwardkblk edwardkblk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ignite cache-api licensing issue

As apache-ignite implements JCache API JSR-107 it depends on cache-api-1.0.0.jar.  However, JCache API is licensed under a “Specification License” https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt which pretty much invalidates any open source licensing of implementation providers.  As such this creates a problem to deploy apache-ignite software.  Have any one looked into this or have an opinion on how should we go about this?

 

Thank you.

 

This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. See http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/compliance/email-disclaimers for further information.  Please refer to http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/compliance/privacy-policy for more information about BlackRock’s Privacy Policy.

For a list of BlackRock's office addresses worldwide, see http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/about-us/contacts-locations.

© 2016 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved.

avk avk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Hey Edward,

For the less licensing-savvy among us, do you mind elaborating on your "pretty much invalidates open source licensing" statement? What type of deployment issues can it create?

Thanks
Andrey


From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: ignite cache-api licensing issue
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 17:40:05 +0000

As apache-ignite implements JCache API JSR-107 it depends on cache-api-1.0.0.jar.  However, JCache API is licensed under a “Specification License” https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/blob/master/LICENSE.txt which pretty much invalidates any open source licensing of implementation providers.  As such this creates a problem to deploy apache-ignite software.  Have any one looked into this or have an opinion on how should we go about this?

 

Thank you.


 

This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. See http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/compliance/email-disclaimers for further information.  Please refer to http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/compliance/privacy-policy for more information about BlackRock’s Privacy Policy.



For a list of BlackRock's office addresses worldwide, see http://www.blackrock.com/corporate/en-us/about-us/contacts-locations.

© 2016 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved.


edwardkblk edwardkblk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department. Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.  That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the issue raised in jsr107 space: https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.
avk avk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Sounds like trouble to me. Thanks for bringing this up!

Andrey

> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:53:24 -0800

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: RE: ignite cache-api licensing issue
>
> Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
> Here is my understanding of the issue: Anyone who would like to use
> apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
> That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
> evaluation or implementation purposes. Hence apache-ignite or any other
> implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
> be used beyond the evaluation. Here is a link to more details from the
> issue raised in jsr107 space:
> https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 . Based on this discussion
> the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
> Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
> geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
dsetrakyan dsetrakyan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

In reply to this post by edwardkblk
Edward,

I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following text:

————-
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
—————

Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I will post an update here in a few days.

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
issue raised in jsr107 space:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion
the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

avk avk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Dmitriy,

I think the paragraph 2 only covers licensing of the *implementations* of the specification (which is Apache Ignite), but not the binaries of the specification itself (which is the cache-api's jar).

Cheers
Andrey


From: [hidden email]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:24:51 -0800
Subject: Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue
To: [hidden email]

Edward,

I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following text:

————-
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
—————

Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I will post an update here in a few days.

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
issue raised in jsr107 space:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion
the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

dsetrakyan dsetrakyan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Andrey,

This would mean that every implementation without exception cannot use this specification in production. I find it hard to believe. I think that granting rights to implement and distribute implementation implies grating the rights to use the spec as well.

However, I will raise a question with geronimo community to find out how they obtained the license. I would not mind changing the dependency to the geronimo-hosted spec at all. Does anyone have a link to the latest version of the JSR hosted by geronimo?

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Andrey Kornev <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dmitriy,

I think the paragraph 2 only covers licensing of the *implementations* of the specification (which is Apache Ignite), but not the binaries of the specification itself (which is the cache-api's jar).

Cheers
Andrey


From: [hidden email]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 16:24:51 -0800
Subject: Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue
To: [hidden email]


Edward,

I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following text:

————-
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
—————

Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I will post an update here in a few days.

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
issue raised in jsr107 space:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion
the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


edwardkblk edwardkblk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Dmitry, Here is the link to geronimo api http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec/1.0-alpha-1.  I tried to compile with Ignite - seems to be promising.  For now, I would wait to see the response from Greg Luck as he is checking with his legal dept on cache-api licensing, see https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 ...
dsetrakyan dsetrakyan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

I am a bit puzzled by the word “alpha”, will ask about it on the geronimo dev list.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:28 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dmitry, Here is the link to geronimo api
http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.apache.geronimo.specs/geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec/1.0-alpha-1.
I tried to compile with Ignite - seems to be promising.  For now, I would
wait to see the response from Greg Luck as he is checking with his legal
dept on cache-api licensing, see
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 ...



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3353.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Raul Kripalani Raul Kripalani
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

In reply to this post by dsetrakyan
Incidentally,

1. Do we *fully* implement the JSR-107 specification?
2. Can we assert that we fully pass the TCK, and that we satisfy the requirements referenced by the the license in this regard?

@Edward – thanks for passing on the message from your legal dept.

Cheers,
Raúl.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Edward,

I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following text:

————-
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
—————

Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I will post an update here in a few days.

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
issue raised in jsr107 space:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion
the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


dsetrakyan dsetrakyan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Raul, Yes to both questions.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote:
Incidentally,

1. Do we *fully* implement the JSR-107 specification?
2. Can we assert that we fully pass the TCK, and that we satisfy the requirements referenced by the the license in this regard?

@Edward – thanks for passing on the message from your legal dept.

Cheers,
Raúl.


On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Edward,

I think you are looking at the evaluation clause. This clause only covers evaluation. It is immediately followed by “License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations” which covers Apache Ignite with the following text:

————-
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Specification Leads also grant you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation"). In addition, the foregoing license is expressly conditioned on your not acting outside its scope. No license is granted hereunder for any other purpose (including, for example, modifying the Specification, other than to the extent of your fair use rights, or distributing the Specification to third parties). Also, no right, title, or interest in or to any trademarks, service marks, or trade names of Specification Leads or Specification Leads' licensors is granted hereunder. Java, and Java-related logos, marks and names are trademarks or registered trademarks of Oracle America, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries.
—————

Having said that, I will follow up with JCache group about re-licensing under Apache 2.0 license, given that Geronimo project already did this. I will post an update here in a few days.

D.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, edwardkblk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Can't say I'm a license expert but it was pointed out by my legal department.
Here is my understanding of the issue:  Anyone who would like to use
apache-ignite is now forced to accept the license of cache-api-1.0.0.jar.
That license pretty much does not permit the use of the cache-api beyond the
evaluation or implementation purposes.  Hence apache-ignite or any other
implementations with the runtime dependency on cache-api-1.0.0.jar can not
be used beyond the evaluation.  Here is a link to more details from the
issue raised in jsr107 space:
https://github.com/jsr107/jsr107spec/issues/333 .  Based on this discussion
the options seems to be either to change cache-api-1.0.0.jar licensing to
Apache 2.0 (hopefully this is possible) or change apache-ignite to use
geronimo-jcache_1.0_spec which is apache JCache API.



--
View this message in context: http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/ignite-cache-api-licensing-issue-tp3306p3344.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



Raul Kripalani Raul Kripalani
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue


On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Raul, Yes to both questions.

Great, do we state it in the website? I think I might have missed it.

Raúl Kripalani
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer
Blog: raul.io | twitter: @raulvk
Dmitriy Setrakyan Dmitriy Setrakyan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ignite cache-api licensing issue

Yes, we state it in several places:


I am not sure if we explicitly say that Ignite passes TCK, but we would not be able to state that Ignite is JCache compliant if it didn’t.

D.

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Raul Kripalani <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]> wrote:
Raul, Yes to both questions.

Great, do we state it in the website? I think I might have missed it.

Raúl Kripalani
PMC & Committer @ Apache Ignite, Apache Camel | Integration, Big Data and Messaging Engineer
Blog: raul.io | twitter: @raulvk