On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Josh Micich wrote:
- This is a big chunk of work to submit with no supporting discussion
e.g. a bugzilla entry or dev mail thread
You are right and I apologize for this. I should have waited before
committing, but was eager to end this work and didn't consider all the
implications.
- There are now 7 new jars that POI depends on to build (my biggest
concern)
Good point. Let us discuss whether they are needed. I would have liked
to add this code in "contrib" or "scratchpad" but there doesn't seem
to be be an area for contrib-only or scratchpad-only libs. Maybe we
shoud add one?
- There may be licensing issues (I am not in a position to judge this
properly). The files all contain a comment "Based on the eID Applet
Project code. Original Copyright (C) 2008-2009 FedICT". Is there a
new relationship between POI and "eid-applet"? Could we at least
document somewhere that this code contribution is properly sanctioned?
Originally the code was LGPL. I asked the author if it were possibile
to release it as AL and he agreed. Here is his reply:
From: fcorneli <[email protected]>
"I've discussed the license issue here at FedICT. We're willing to dual-
license (LGPL/AL) the Java source code files concerning the creation
and validation of OOXML signatures as found under the eid-applet-
service-signer artifact. The headers on these Java source files have
been adopted accordingly."
The original files which have been copied can be found here:
http://code.google.com/p/eid-applet/source/browse/trunk/eid-applet-service-signer/src/main/java/be/fedict/eid/applet/service/signer/
I've put an attribution notice in the NOTICE file.
- There is a (small) compiler error introduced apparently because the
original code was compiled against JDK 6.
Sorry again. I _thought_ I had tested it under JDK 1.5 as well, but
apparently this was before further modifications introduced some
incompatibilities again. It looks like you have already caught and
fixed those, right?
Anyway, we can have a discussion and vote on whether we want to keep
this code or revert it. As you wrote, it should have happened
beforehand, but it was not my intention to introduce it as a "fait
accompli". I'll be OK with reverting the change if so we decide.
Ugo
--
Ugo Cei
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
