Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ace.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ace.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of janwillem.janssen@luminis.eu
 designates 213.199.154.12 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <51700E76.6010906@luminis.eu>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:17:10 +0200
From: Jan Willem Janssen <janwillem.janssen@luminis.eu>
Organization: Luminis
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <dev@ace.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Working towards a new release...
References: <12E91885-5E01-4BAC-812F-436FDD002319@luminis.nl>
In-Reply-To: <12E91885-5E01-4BAC-812F-436FDD002319@luminis.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/18/13 4:17 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:

> An issue to discuss:
> 
> We currently have a dependency on BouncyCastle: directly because
> we have one unit test that uses it, and indirectly, because jclouds
> uses it. Jan Willem looked into this and what it would mean to
> release this a while ago, but I believe our question to legal
> regarding this is still open. We have two options: a) remove
> BouncyCastle from the release, meaning we can't release one test
> and our jclouds support, or b) make sure we get a good answer from
> legal and a way forward so we can release this. Any thoughts?

If it would only be used for (unit)tests, then I would propose to move
it out of the trunk into a sandbox. However, as it is also used for
the cloud-support in ACE, I'm not in favor of removing all
crypto-related code. We do want to have jclouds support built into ACE
sooner or later, so we might well take the "pain" now.

There has been some discussion on the legal-discuss ML about how to
proceed, see
<http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss/2254> and
<http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.legal.discuss/2349> for
an overview. There is also a JIRA issue about this as well:
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-145>.

IIRC, the situation is that adding a clause for Apache ACE on the
legal exports-page *should* be sufficient. However, I still haven't
had confirmation about this, perhaps any of the PMCs can ping legal again?

- -- 
Met vriendelijke groeten | Kind regards

Jan Willem Janssen | Software Architect
+31 631 765 814

/My world is revolving around PulseOn and Amdatu/

Luminis Technologies B.V.
J.C. Wilslaan 29
7313 HK   Apeldoorn
+31 88 586 46 30

http://www.luminis-technologies.com
http://www.luminis.eu

KvK (CoC) 09 16 28 93
BTW (VAT) NL8169.78.566.B.01
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=jk9r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----