On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jason Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > This is simply a stop gap until all the issues with the software grant are > worked out. Richard has the files from Solder for the grant. Since I don't > think it's been finalized should we now also include Security? I wonder if > that will be tricky as Security is so tightly coupled with PicketLink. >
Hmm, I thought you were redoing the security API from the ground up. And couldn't we do the security stuff such that PicketLink is only an option? Matt > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:09, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Wait, I don't think is where we landed! :) Per Sam "under the terms >> of the ALv2" is *not* the kind of license/grant we want, and he is >> happy to let deltaspike go on committing things for which everyone >> *expects* the appropriate SG will be eventually filed. >> >> Matt >> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Gerhard Petracek >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> hi @ all, >>> >>> i had to revert 1177d4a7fd3e669eb84ce3987368d5ceaebfeb6a because shane >>> didn't add >>> "Submitted on behalf of a third-part: Red Hat, Inc. under the terms of the >>> ALv2" >>> to the commit message of the initial import. >>> >>> furthermore there were >>> - no license headers >>> - 81 checkstyle issues >>> i fixed those issues and pushed them to [1] - so you don't have to do it >>> again. >>> >>> @shane: >>> please import the files again and don't forget the hint in the commit >>> message. >>> >>> @all: >>> please always run >>> mvn clean install >>> before a push. >>> >>> regards, >>> gerhard >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/os890/DS_Discuss/tree/DS69fixed
