Re: [classlib] bouncy castle
On 2/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . 4.2) develop sources required to verify signature in the main BC JAR and redistribute BC.JAR as is Hm. That's interesting. What does this really mean? we need to implement SHA-1 message digest and SHA1withDSA signature. see http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200602.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] It is not trivial, so might be good for mid-term solution. 4.3) #2 but take only necessary classes Yes, it was always intended to just take the minimum amount necessary. Sounds very reasonable. Thanks, Mikhail. If #3 is not legally pure, then I'd prefer #2 Thanks, Mikhail On 2/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, the thread re BC has gotten a bit confusing. I thought the reason we needed to consider using a copy of the code is because we need to create our own signed JAR. If this is incorrect, please say something. I think there are a few ways to do this (and please, suggest others...) : 1) Rewrite the whole thing (certainly not ideal - noting here for completeness) 2) Get a copy of the BC source and put in our repository 3) manufacture our own signed JAR from their source JAR. 4) Other? I'm uncomfortable w/ #3 because we're not really simply re-distributing someone else's code (because we re-package) nor are we publishing something with the standard ASF oversight. I'd like to avoid #1. Can we do #2 and then keep refreshing whenever they do an update, with us contributing to them if we find bugs? Ideas? geir
[classlib] bouncy castle
Ok, the thread re BC has gotten a bit confusing. I thought the reason we needed to consider using a copy of the code is because we need to create our own signed JAR. If this is incorrect, please say something. I think there are a few ways to do this (and please, suggest others...) : 1) Rewrite the whole thing (certainly not ideal - noting here for completeness) 2) Get a copy of the BC source and put in our repository 3) manufacture our own signed JAR from their source JAR. 4) Other? I'm uncomfortable w/ #3 because we're not really simply re-distributing someone else's code (because we re-package) nor are we publishing something with the standard ASF oversight. I'd like to avoid #1. Can we do #2 and then keep refreshing whenever they do an update, with us contributing to them if we find bugs? Ideas? geir
Re: [classlib] bouncy castle
IMHO 1) Might make sense for the second release :) 2) The only problem I see here - BC contains classes that are not necessary for us. So, our repository will contain redundant files 3) It might be manufacturing our own UNsigned JAR from their JAR. If we do not modify sources in #2 then I do not see big legal difference. Though I'm not an expert in the legal area. 4.1) extract sources required to verify signature in the main BC JAR and redistribute BC.JAR as is 4.2) develop sources required to verify signature in the main BC JAR and redistribute BC.JAR as is 4.3) #2 but take only necessary classes If #3 is not legally pure, then I'd prefer #2 Thanks, Mikhail On 2/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, the thread re BC has gotten a bit confusing. I thought the reason we needed to consider using a copy of the code is because we need to create our own signed JAR. If this is incorrect, please say something. I think there are a few ways to do this (and please, suggest others...) : 1) Rewrite the whole thing (certainly not ideal - noting here for completeness) 2) Get a copy of the BC source and put in our repository 3) manufacture our own signed JAR from their source JAR. 4) Other? I'm uncomfortable w/ #3 because we're not really simply re-distributing someone else's code (because we re-package) nor are we publishing something with the standard ASF oversight. I'd like to avoid #1. Can we do #2 and then keep refreshing whenever they do an update, with us contributing to them if we find bugs? Ideas? geir
Re: [classlib] bouncy castle
Mikhail Loenko wrote: IMHO 1) Might make sense for the second release :) 2) The only problem I see here - BC contains classes that are not necessary for us. So, our repository will contain redundant files Not necessarily - we'd just take what we needed, not the whole thing. 3) It might be manufacturing our own UNsigned JAR from their JAR. If we do not modify sources in #2 then I do not see big legal difference. Though I'm not an expert in the legal area. There is no legal issue - lets just focus on what makes project-management / engineering sense. BTW, I didn't mean source really - I mean as them as the source of the code for our JAR. Sorry. With this, the problem is that we'd be redistributing software that isn't released by anyone (we wouldn't call it bcprov) as a unit. Anything that we create and distribute (and we'd be creating this) should be reproducible from our SVN, becuase a) it's reproducible if there is a question b) the project will have oversight on what it's releasing - when we [eventually] say This is Apache Harmony, we want to be sure that everything that isn't just a repurposed dependency is something we can track the origin of... 4.1) extract sources required to verify signature in the main BC JAR and redistribute BC.JAR as is 4.2) develop sources required to verify signature in the main BC JAR and redistribute BC.JAR as is Hm. That's interesting. What does this really mean? 4.3) #2 but take only necessary classes Yes, it was always intended to just take the minimum amount necessary. If #3 is not legally pure, then I'd prefer #2 Thanks, Mikhail On 2/13/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, the thread re BC has gotten a bit confusing. I thought the reason we needed to consider using a copy of the code is because we need to create our own signed JAR. If this is incorrect, please say something. I think there are a few ways to do this (and please, suggest others...) : 1) Rewrite the whole thing (certainly not ideal - noting here for completeness) 2) Get a copy of the BC source and put in our repository 3) manufacture our own signed JAR from their source JAR. 4) Other? I'm uncomfortable w/ #3 because we're not really simply re-distributing someone else's code (because we re-package) nor are we publishing something with the standard ASF oversight. I'd like to avoid #1. Can we do #2 and then keep refreshing whenever they do an update, with us contributing to them if we find bugs? Ideas? geir
