poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ugo Cei <u....@sourcesense.com>
Subject Re: Recent additions to POI "Added implementation of Digital Signature support"
Date Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:04:56 GMT

On Oct 13, 2009, at 10:30 PM, Josh Micich wrote:

> - This is a big chunk of work to submit with no supporting discussion
> e.g. a bugzilla entry or dev mail thread

You are right and I apologize for this. I should have waited before  
committing, but was eager to end this work and didn't consider all the  

> - There are now 7 new jars that POI depends on to build (my biggest  
> concern)

Good point. Let us discuss whether they are needed. I would have liked  
to add this code in "contrib" or "scratchpad" but there doesn't seem  
to be be an area for contrib-only or scratchpad-only libs. Maybe we  
shoud add one?

> - There may be licensing issues (I am not in a position to judge this
> properly). The files all contain a comment "Based on the eID Applet
> Project code.  Original Copyright (C) 2008-2009 FedICT".  Is there a
> new relationship between POI and "eid-applet"?  Could we at least
> document somewhere that this code contribution is properly sanctioned?

Originally the code was LGPL. I asked the author if it were possibile  
to release it as AL and he agreed. Here is his reply:

From: fcorneli <frank.cornelis@gmail.com>

"I've discussed the license issue here at FedICT. We're willing to dual-
license (LGPL/AL) the Java source code files concerning the creation
and validation of OOXML signatures as found under the eid-applet-
service-signer artifact. The headers on these Java source files have
been adopted accordingly."

The original files which have been copied can be found here:


I've put an attribution notice in the NOTICE file.

> - There is a (small) compiler error introduced apparently because the
> original code was compiled against JDK 6.

Sorry again. I _thought_ I had tested it under JDK 1.5 as well, but  
apparently this was before further modifications introduced some  
incompatibilities again. It looks like you have already caught and  
fixed those, right?

Anyway, we can have a discussion and vote on whether we want to keep  
this code or revert it. As you wrote, it should have happened  
beforehand, but it was not my intention to introduce it as a "fait  
accompli". I'll be OK with reverting the change if so we decide.


Ugo Cei
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org

View raw message