Yes, I believe that is where we ended. Richard has the list for Solder, I'm not sure if the grant has been signed though.
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:50, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Jason Porter <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I think that's the idea, yes. However, with this particular commit I'm not >> sure if Shane rewrote the stuff he committed or just modified it were needed >> for the API changes from Solder to DS. This will probably be a common thing >> as more modules are migrated from Seam into DS. > > I thought our IP talks involved the idea that either the SGA would be > extended as needed, or new ones filed. If either of these can be made > to apply, then AFAIK we're still okay. > > Matt > >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:27, Matt Benson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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
