> All,
>
> Re: The legal issues with the use of LibAIO.
>
> The response from apache-legal is that the use of LibAIO in the context
> of Apache Artemis is OK and does not pose any legal concerns. I realise
> there is an on going side discussion regarding legal documentation and
> perhaps contradictions between legal stances on Artemis and other
> projects. But, given we've had the OK from several board members, I am
> keen to go ahead and cut the next RC.
>
> The legal discussion thread can be found here:
>
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201512.mbox/%3C567BDDC1.8060805@...%3E>
>
> The next RC will have addressed the issues with binary inclusions in the
> src release and also the great usability feedback provided by Claus
> Ibsen. It should be with you very soon.
>
> Regards
> Martyn
>
> On 24/12/15 12:01, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>> I have sent an email to the legal-discuss describing the issue. Please
>> follow the thread at the legal-discuss list.
>>
>> On 24/12/15 11:15, Martyn Taylor wrote:
>>> 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>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Locked
