In light of this, could you please resolve the following issue? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHIRO-41
Thanks, Les On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > For artwork it can get complicated but only if you received stipulations on > its usage; it doesn't seem that there is any. I think we're good here. > > > Regards, > Alan > > On Dec 16, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> There is one minor thing I forgot to mention: Jeremy's friend created >> the old JSecurity shield/lock logo for us. He did the logo for us in >> return for free website hosting on one of our servers. This is >> payment for services rendered (he payed us by doing the logo work, the >> services rendered were the website hosting), so I don't think that we >> need a CLA/sign-off from him. >> >> As I understand it, the shield/lock logo is our intellectual property >> due to this agreement and we don't need to involve him. IANAL, but I >> think we're ok. >> >> - Les >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Yep, it did. Just for clarity's sake: every contributor on the old >>> JSecurity project came over as a committer to Apache and each also >>> sent the re-licensing agreement/affirmation at that time. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Les >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> So, back in July Craig sent out a set of emails from committers in the >>>> project stating that re-licensing for ASF. What I am not sure of is >>>> that >>>> this covers *all* the original authors from the JSecurity project before >>>> it >>>> arrived at the Incubator. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> On Dec 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >
