[VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
64 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

andytaylor
It's a configuration option in the broker.xml. however by default the cli
will default to use it. Saying that it will only use it if it's libation
has been installed,  if it hasn't then NIO us used.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:07 John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out
> > of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> > configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use
> > if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that occurs
> > completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> occurring,
> > then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
> > user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> > > process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
> > > new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> > > something that was fixed now.
> > >
> > > The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> > > linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> > > gcc.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> >
> > wrote:
> > >>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
> > >>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
> > would
> > >>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
> > >> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
> > >> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> > >> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
> > >> asked before.
> > >>
> > >> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> > >> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Clebert Suconic
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

clebertsuconic
Libaio is a kernel feature.  Part of the Linux kernel.

It's optional and the cli default to it if available in the OS.  As Andy said.


If what you are saying was true thought Apache HTTP would for instance have serious problems with libc and other libraries it's using for example.  

Libaio is part of the architecture / OS we are running on.


But regardless it's use is optional.  I don't see a reason for such big deal at this time.

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> It's a configuration option in the broker.xml. however by default the cli
> will default to use it. Saying that it will only use it if it's libation
> has been installed,  if it hasn't then NIO us used.
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:07 John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out
>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use
>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that occurs
>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
>> occurring,
>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>
>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>> gcc.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
>>> would
>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>
>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

dkulp
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?

Kind of both…

By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.   The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit choice they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.


The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable it or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
makes so much more sense:

"However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that are not enabled by default.”


Dan



>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out
>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use
>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that occurs
>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s occurring,
>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>
>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>> gcc.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
>> would
>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
>>>> asked before.
>>>>
>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

andytaylor
I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.

We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>
> Kind of both…
>
> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.
>  The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly
> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit choice
> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
>
>
> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use
> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable it
> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK
> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> makes so much more sense:
>
> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that
> are not enabled by default.”
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> “out
> >> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> >> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
> use
> >> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> occurs
> >> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> occurring,
> >> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
> >> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> >>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
> >>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> >>> something that was fixed now.
> >>>
> >>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> >>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> >>> gcc.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
> >>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
> >> would
> >>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
> >>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
> >>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> >>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
> >>>> asked before.
> >>>>
> >>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> >>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

dkulp

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
> explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
> installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.

The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has it installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.    (likely mysql)

> We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.

That would certainly work.

Dan



> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>>
>> Kind of both…
>>
>> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.
>> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly
>> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit choice
>> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
>>
>>
>> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use
>> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable it
>> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK
>> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
>> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>> makes so much more sense:
>>
>> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that
>> are not enabled by default.”
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
>> “out
>>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
>> use
>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
>> occurs
>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
>> occurring,
>>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>> [hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
>>>> would
>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>>

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

chirino
In reply to this post by dkulp
So I think the current policy is not that hard to understand.

It basically says that we cannot redistribute category x licensed bits.
Check.

Using the LGPL licensed libaio does not require us to change our license.
Check.

So we are working in a scenario similar to what is described in the "DOES
IT MATTER WHAT PLATFORM AN APACHE PRODUCT IS CREATED TO WORK WITH?" Section
of
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

Libaio is a platform API that we use if it's available.


On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>
> Kind of both…
>
> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.
>  The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly
> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit choice
> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
>
>
> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use
> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable it
> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK
> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> makes so much more sense:
>
> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that
> are not enabled by default.”
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> “out
> >> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> >> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
> use
> >> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> occurs
> >> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> occurring,
> >> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
> >> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> >>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
> >>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> >>> something that was fixed now.
> >>>
> >>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> >>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> >>> gcc.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
> >>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
> >> would
> >>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
> >>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
> >>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> >>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
> >>>> asked before.
> >>>>
> >>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> >>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Clebert Suconic
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by dkulp
+1 for a prompt on broker creation.

It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.

John

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
> > explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
> > installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
>
> The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
> installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has it
> installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
> installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
> installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
> (likely mysql)
>
> > We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
>
> That would certainly work.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
> >>
> >> Kind of both…
> >>
> >> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.
> >> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly
> >> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
> choice
> >> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
> >>
> >>
> >> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use
> >> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable
> it
> >> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be
> OK
> >> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> >> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> >> makes so much more sense:
> >>
> >> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that
> >> are not enabled by default.”
> >>
> >>
> >> Dan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> >> “out
> >>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> >>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
> >> use
> >>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> >> occurs
> >>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> >> occurring,
> >>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
> the
> >>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> >>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open
> a
> >>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> >>>>> something that was fixed now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> >>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> >>>>> gcc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
> [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
> legal
> >>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
> >>>> would
> >>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
> email
> >>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
> >>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> >>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
> had
> >>>>>> asked before.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> >>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
> thread.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kulp
> >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

andytaylor
I think that's doable. I'll see if I can come up with a PR over the
Christmas period and report back.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 23:24 John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:

> +1 for a prompt on broker creation.
>
> It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
> Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
> enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
> > > explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
> > > installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
> >
> > The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
> > installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has
> it
> > installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
> > installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
> > installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
> > (likely mysql)
> >
> > > We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
> >
> > That would certainly work.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
> > >>
> > >> Kind of both…
> > >>
> > >> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that
> case.
> > >> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and
> explicitly
> > >> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
> > choice
> > >> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not
> use
> > >> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to
> enable
> > it
> > >> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be
> > OK
> > >> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> > >> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> > >> makes so much more sense:
> > >>
> > >> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features
> that
> > >> are not enabled by default.”
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> > >> “out
> > >>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> > >>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to
> enable
> > >> use
> > >>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> > >> occurs
> > >>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> > >> occurring,
> > >>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
> > the
> > >>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dan
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > >> [hidden email]>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> > >>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
> open
> > a
> > >>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> > >>>>> something that was fixed now.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> > >>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> > >>>>> gcc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
> > [hidden email]
> > >>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
> > legal
> > >>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
> release,
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
> > email
> > >>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were
> ok
> > >>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> > >>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
> > had
> > >>>>>> asked before.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> > >>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
> > thread.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Daniel Kulp
> > >>>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by chirino
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 6:24 PM Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> So I think the current policy is not that hard to understand.
>
> It basically says that we cannot redistribute category x licensed bits.
> Check.
>

There's a difference between depend on and distribute with.

I'm inclined to say that the libaio situation is similar to relying on
bash, GPL software.  It's something the OS provides.  No one's distributing
it, and the library leveraged by Artemis is an Apache V2 licensed piece of
software derived from the LGPL library.

But honestly, even PMC/member discussions are just speculative.  The
definitive answer comes from legal.

I'm unable to find anything on the legal tracker for "libaio" or "hornetq"
so I'm not sure where those discussions occurred.  I can search their
emails next.

John


>
> Using the LGPL licensed libaio does not require us to change our license.
> Check.
>
> So we are working in a scenario similar to what is described in the "DOES
> IT MATTER WHAT PLATFORM AN APACHE PRODUCT IS CREATED TO WORK WITH?" Section
> of
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
> Libaio is a platform API that we use if it's available.
>
>
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
> >
> > Kind of both…
> >
> > By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that case.
> >  The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and explicitly
> > run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit choice
> > they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
> >
> >
> > The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not use
> > the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to enable
> it
> > or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be OK
> > there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> > confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> > makes so much more sense:
> >
> > "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features that
> > are not enabled by default.”
> >
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> > “out
> > >> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> > >> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable
> > use
> > >> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> > occurs
> > >> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> > occurring,
> > >> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
> the
> > >> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> > >>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open
> a
> > >>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> > >>> something that was fixed now.
> > >>>
> > >>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> > >>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> > >>> gcc.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > >>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
> [hidden email]
> > <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
> legal
> > >>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release,
> > >> would
> > >>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
> email
> > >>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
> > >>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> > >>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
> had
> > >>>> asked before.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> > >>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
> thread.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
> >
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

chirino
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
-1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our
users a worse experience out of the box.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> +1 for a prompt on broker creation.
>
> It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
> Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
> enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
> > > explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
> > > installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
> >
> > The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
> > installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has
> it
> > installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
> > installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
> > installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
> > (likely mysql)
> >
> > > We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
> >
> > That would certainly work.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
> > >>
> > >> Kind of both…
> > >>
> > >> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that
> case.
> > >> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and
> explicitly
> > >> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
> > choice
> > >> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not
> use
> > >> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to
> enable
> > it
> > >> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be
> > OK
> > >> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> > >> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> > >> makes so much more sense:
> > >>
> > >> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features
> that
> > >> are not enabled by default.”
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Dan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
> > >> “out
> > >>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> > >>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to
> enable
> > >> use
> > >>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> > >> occurs
> > >>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> > >> occurring,
> > >>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
> > the
> > >>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dan
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> > >> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> > >>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
> open
> > a
> > >>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> > >>>>> something that was fixed now.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> > >>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> > >>>>> gcc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> > >>>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
> > legal
> > >>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
> release,
> > >>>> would
> > >>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
> > email
> > >>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were
> ok
> > >>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> > >>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
> > had
> > >>>>>> asked before.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> > >>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
> > thread.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Clebert Suconic
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Daniel Kulp
> > >>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Daniel Kulp
> > >> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > >> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Kulp
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> > Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >
> >
>


--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

clebertsuconic
Let me explain what libaio is:


it's a wrapper that makes calls into the kernel.


if you for instance open libaio.c, this is the entire source code for
io_submit (the most used function):

io_syscall3(int, io_submit, io_submit, io_context_t, ctx, long, nr,
struct iocb **, iocbs)


See for yourself:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/libaio.git/log/


Open libaio.spec:

on the definition: This library, libaio, provides the Linux-native API
for async I/O.


Anyways, Saying you can't depend on anything LGPL is the same as
saying you can't depend on Linux or anything coming from Linux. for
instance Apache HTTP (the very first project that founded this
organization) would be breaking the apache license itself by using
libc. (Open the source code if you don't believe me).

It's certainly not the case...as libc is a platform API.

libaio is also a platform API.


 hence the definition that HIram found...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

dkulp

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Anyways, Saying you can't depend on anything LGPL is the same as
> saying you can't depend on Linux or anything coming from Linux. for
> instance Apache HTTP (the very first project that founded this
> organization) would be breaking the apache license itself by using
> libc. (Open the source code if you don't believe me).
>
> It's certainly not the case...as libc is a platform API.

Except you can build HTTP on Linux and NOT depend on the gnu license libc.   I can use clang as the compiler (or the intel compiler or ….) and not end up with a dependency on a LGPL library.   If you have a non-LGPL version of libaio, then by all means, let’s use it.

> libaio is also a platform API.

libaio is NOT installed by default on pretty much any of the linux “platforms" so I would have a hard time considering as a part of the platform.


--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

dkulp
In reply to this post by chirino

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> -1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our
> users a worse experience out of the box.

Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is giving them a worse experience?

Dan



>
> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for a prompt on broker creation.
>>
>> It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
>> Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
>> enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>> I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
>>>> explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
>>>> installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
>>>
>>> The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
>>> installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has
>> it
>>> installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
>>> installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
>>> installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
>>> (likely mysql)
>>>
>>>> We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
>>>
>>> That would certainly work.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind of both…
>>>>>
>>>>> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that
>> case.
>>>>> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and
>> explicitly
>>>>> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
>>> choice
>>>>> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not
>> use
>>>>> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to
>> enable
>>> it
>>>>> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be
>>> OK
>>>>> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
>>>>> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>>>>> makes so much more sense:
>>>>>
>>>>> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features
>> that
>>>>> are not enabled by default.”
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
>>>>> “out
>>>>>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
>>>>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to
>> enable
>>>>> use
>>>>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
>>>>> occurs
>>>>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
>>>>> occurring,
>>>>>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
>>> the
>>>>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
>> open
>>> a
>>>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
>>> legal
>>>>>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
>> release,
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>> email
>>>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were
>> ok
>>>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
>>> had
>>>>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Kulp
>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Hiram Chirino
> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

--
Daniel Kulp
[hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

clebertsuconic
> Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is giving them a worse experience?


ok.. there's no technical or legal point about it.. but if that
settles the discussion lets do it. I don't want to spend more time
writing emails, talking to legal than I would on write 10 lines of
code to settle this.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

clebertsuconic
anyway guys.. it's been a great year... lets enjoy the holidays..
chill out a bit..
It's been a great year and I'm happy to be part of this community.
Happy holidays you all.. I'm out :)

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Clebert Suconic
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is giving them a worse experience?
>
>
> ok.. there's no technical or legal point about it.. but if that
> settles the discussion lets do it. I don't want to spend more time
> writing emails, talking to legal than I would on write 10 lines of
> code to settle this.



--
Clebert Suconic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

chirino
In reply to this post by dkulp
What's the diffence between one platform api like aio and another like
win32?  They have about the same effect on our code. We can't distribute
their libs and they don't force us to change our licensing terms.

Btw the compiler you use has nothing to do with the libs  you link against.
And most Linux apps link against glibc. It's just a platform API. Which the
official apache policy says there are no problems on linking against.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anyways, Saying you can't depend on anything LGPL is the same as
> > saying you can't depend on Linux or anything coming from Linux. for
> > instance Apache HTTP (the very first project that founded this
> > organization) would be breaking the apache license itself by using
> > libc. (Open the source code if you don't believe me).
> >
> > It's certainly not the case...as libc is a platform API.
>
> Except you can build HTTP on Linux and NOT depend on the gnu license
> libc.   I can use clang as the compiler (or the intel compiler or ….) and
> not end up with a dependency on a LGPL library.   If you have a non-LGPL
> version of libaio, then by all means, let’s use it.
>
> > libaio is also a platform API.
>
> libaio is NOT installed by default on pretty much any of the linux
> “platforms" so I would have a hard time considering as a part of the
> platform.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

andytaylor
In reply to this post by dkulp
As John Says, lets run it past legal, if they are happy that what is
shipped is ok then lets leave as is, if not, then make it an optional
(as in it takes a flag/explicit) choice at create time.

John, how do we do this?


On 24/12/15 00:25, Daniel Kulp wrote:

>
>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> -1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our
>> users a worse experience out of the box.
>
> Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better is giving them a worse experience?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, John D. Ament <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for a prompt on broker creation.
>>>
>>> It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
>>> Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
>>> enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>> I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
>>>>> explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
>>>>> installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
>>>> installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has
>>> it
>>>> installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
>>>> installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
>>>> installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
>>>> (likely mysql)
>>>>
>>>>> We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
>>>>
>>>> That would certainly work.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind of both…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that
>>> case.
>>>>>> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and
>>> explicitly
>>>>>> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
>>>> choice
>>>>>> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not
>>> use
>>>>>> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to
>>> enable
>>>> it
>>>>>> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d be
>>>> OK
>>>>>> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
>>>>>> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>>>>>> makes so much more sense:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features
>>> that
>>>>>> are not enabled by default.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker
>>>>>> “out
>>>>>>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
>>>>>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to
>>> enable
>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
>>>>>> occurs
>>>>>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
>>>>>> occurring,
>>>>>>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
>>>> the
>>>>>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
>>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>>>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
>>> open
>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>>>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>>>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>>>>>>>> gcc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
>>>> legal
>>>>>>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
>>> release,
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
>>>> email
>>>>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were
>>> ok
>>>>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we
>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>> asked before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daniel Kulp
>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> [hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

clebertsuconic
In reply to this post by chirino
> libaio is NOT installed by default on pretty much any of the linux
> “platforms" so I would have a hard time considering as a part of the
> platform.

linux AIO is part of the kernel. You have no choice over it if you are
using a regular distribution. (Unless you recompile the kernel without
it)

libaio, the wrapper is not. it would be possible to write syscalls
directly to the kernel and you would have no choice over it as long as
you are working on linux.

I don't want to reinvent the wheel though... the optional dependency,
checking if the system has the capability or not would be enough IMO.
(with the user having the choice to enable it or not).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

chirino
In reply to this post by dkulp
My bad. Missread johns original message. Thought we was saying have prompt
to enable libaio. Apologies.

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > On Dec 23, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Hiram Chirino <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > -1 that seems silly. There is no legal reason to do that and it gives our
> > users a worse experience out of the box.
>
> Giving our users the information they would need to make it perform better
> is giving them a worse experience?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> >
> > On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for a prompt on broker creation.
> >>
> >> It could even include a prompt, say "No libaio detected, to make your
> >> Artemis server faster please install libaio and {do necessary step to
> >> enable in broker}" but if it is installed, just prompt/given flag.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:55 PM, Andy Taylor <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>> I Guess it depends on what they mean by enabled. If the user has to
> >>>> explicitly install it then to me it's optional. Saying that if it's
> >>>> installed by default on the OS you could argue the opposite.
> >>>
> >>> The issue with the is that the user may not even know if they have it
> >>> installed or not.    For example, on my two gentoo linux boxes, one has
> >> it
> >>> installed and one doesn’t.   I have no idea why the one that has it
> >>> installed has it.   With the package management and such, something I
> >>> installed there some time in the past must have caused it to install.
> >>> (likely mysql)
> >>>
> >>>> We could change the cli to prompt for a choice at create time.
> >>>
> >>> That would certainly work.
> >>>
> >>> Dan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:41 Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 4:07 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you referring to the bin or src distribution?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind of both…
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By removing the binary from the src distribution, that covers that
> >> case.
> >>>>> The user would have to cd into the appropriate directory and
> >> explicitly
> >>>>> run the “make” or whatever to build the binary.   It’s an explicit
> >>> choice
> >>>>> they make.   Thus, I’m completely OK with that now.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The bin distribution is still an issue.   If the default was to not
> >> use
> >>>>> the libaio at all unless the user either edited a config file to
> >> enable
> >>> it
> >>>>> or pass a command line flag or similar to take explicit action, I’d
> be
> >>> OK
> >>>>> there as well.     The new wording on the legal pages is completely
> >>>>> confusing.  The original suggested wording in:
> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
> >>>>> makes so much more sense:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "However, projects may use LGPL licensed works in optional features
> >> that
> >>>>> are not enabled by default.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the
> broker
> >>>>> “out
> >>>>>>> of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to
> >>>>>>> configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to
> >> enable
> >>>>> use
> >>>>>>> if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that
> >>>>> occurs
> >>>>>>> completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s
> >>>>> occurring,
> >>>>>>> then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <
> >>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
> >>>>>>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to
> >> open
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
> >>>>>>>> something that was fixed now.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
> >>>>>>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
> >>>>>>>> gcc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>> <[hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <
> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/
> >>> legal
> >>>>>>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next
> >> release,
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that
> >>> email
> >>>>>>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were
> >> ok
> >>>>>>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
> >>>>>>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue
> we
> >>> had
> >>>>>>>>> asked before.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
> >>>>>>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this
> >>> thread.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Clebert Suconic
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;> -
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Daniel Kulp
> >>>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;> -
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>>>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Daniel Kulp
> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;> <javascript:;> -
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> >>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hiram Chirino
> > Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
> > [hidden email] <javascript:;> | fusesource.com | redhat.com
> > skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> [hidden email] <javascript:;> - http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>
>

--
Hiram Chirino
Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
[hidden email] | fusesource.com | redhat.com
skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0

Martyn Taylor
In reply to this post by chirino
I do not see what the issue is here.  We are not *distributing* any LGPL
licensed library.  We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram said,
how does this differ from relying on bash or win32?

To quote the legal docs: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

""
CAN APACHE PROJECTS RELY ON COMPONENTS UNDER PROHIBITED LICENSES?¶
<http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited>

Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the
previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the
component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing.
For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.
""

I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to
proactively enable the use of libaio.  The ASYNCIO journal is what we
recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance on
persisted messages, for this reason it should be default.  I agree with
Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user experience, as the
default configuration is now considerably slower.  Out of the box
configuration should in my opinion be as close to optimum as we can.  
Having a user read the documentation, understand what ASYNCIO is, what
benefits it has and then make a decision to enable it, is more effort.

Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against
licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a
definitive answer.

Regards
Martyn

On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:

> I think the binary distro uses the libaio.so if it's installed in your
> system.  Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out of the box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to configure something (pass a flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use if the LGPL library, then fine.    However, if it’s something that occurs completely automatically without the user even knowing that it’s occurring, then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>> something that was fixed now.
>>>
>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>> gcc.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release, would
>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
>>>> asked before.
>>>>
>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> [hidden email] - http://dankulp.com/blog
>> Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com
>>
>
>

1234