I have been in touch with an organization that is prepared to sponsor the certification - i.e. they will donate the money - but it is unlikely that they would want the certificate in their name, partly because of the legal considerations and partly because they feel strongly that such sponsorship should be seen as 'community sponsorship'. So I imagine that an individual taking on the responsiblity for the certificate may be the way forward, and perhaps that individual should be one of the active Jmol developers (afterall they are responsible for ensuring that there are no security issues with the code) ?
Although Jmol is opensource, I assume the certificate isnt, so there shouldnt be an issue with anyone modifying the Jmol source and putting it out with the same certificate - pointless exercise otherwise? Anyway, lots to think about and look into... Quoting Dave Howorth <dhowo...@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk>: > Nicolas Vervelle wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Rzepa, Henry S >> <h.rz...@imperial.ac.uk>wrote: >>> I think this is great for testing, but what will happen in ?production >>> mode? Inevitably when one talks to large organisations (as I did with the >>> ACS and RSC), they ask ?what will our lawyers make of it?? So could we >>> issue Jmol in the name of one individual, and would that individual be >>> happy potentially dealing with eg ACS and RSC lawyers? >>> >>> Or, how could we set up Jmol as an ?organisation? so that the >>> certificate goes out in its name? >> >> Maybe, but I don't know how to get a free or cheap code-signing certificate >> for an organisation, even a non-profit one. >> But, sure, that would be a better option. > > ... > >> I really don't know what are the legal implications of code signing, if >> there are... > > It seems to me that this is the crux of the problem. To solve the > problem, I think it will be necessary to speak to lawyer(s) who > specialize in the area. Presumably Oracle, and perhaps the Java > community, have access to lawyers who understand the implications of the > plan, so it might be worth asking them. Alternatively, I think it would > be worthwhile sending an enquiry to i...@eff.org to see whether they > could help or suggest some other contacts. That is, unless anybody > already has access to a suitable lawyer. > > BTW, > >>> So perhaps JSmol could be tuned (along with the JavaScript engine) >>> to do the same. But not I fancy for a year or two? > > Even when/if Javascript has been tuned, not everybody will be using the > latest version. So it will be necessary to continue support for some > time unless it's acceptable to break those users' experience. Certainly > it's extremely unlikely there will be a 100% upgrade to a JS-only > solution by next January IMHO. > > Cheers, Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers > Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore > techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most > from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Jmol-users mailing list > Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60136231&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
