Craig, can you please just confirm this so we have a clear record of it? Thanks,
Les On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > If Craig has confirmed that all the original authors from JSecurity have > filed a license agreement then I think we're good. > > > Regards, > Alan > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 4:58 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Yep, we're covered. All people who contributed previously to >> JSecurity became committers to Shiro. Before joining the incubator, >> we all formally (each) agreed to the transfer. >> >> HTH, >> >> Les >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I recall that agreements were forwarded by current project members. I'm >>> not >>> certain that we covered all the people who contributed to the original >>> project. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >>> >>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>> >>>> To the best of my knowledge this is all finished - Craig helped out >>>> with it. I forwarded all the formal statements from all previous >>>> committers that they fully agree and support of transferring all of >>>> their work to the ASF 2.0 license. >>>> >>>> Craig, could you please clarify if there's anything else that needs to >>>> be >>>> done? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Les >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that we're long >>>>>> overdue for our first release ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a crack >>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that >>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd like to >>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to speak-up if >>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I missed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should concretely >>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible from >>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can finish all >>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, otherwise, I'll >>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds great! >>>>> >>>>> The only thing that's hazy in my mind is the LGPL vetting. I recall an >>>>> effort to obtain permission to relicense the code from the original >>>>> authors >>>>> but am not sure if it was completed and all the requisite permissions >>>>> were >>>>> properly filed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alan >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >
