New LWJGL certificate

Started by Matzon, November 08, 2010, 20:34:19

Previous topic - Next topic

Matzon

The previous Oddlabs certificate was about to expire, so we had to renew. We already had a deal with sharing the certificate with oddlabs again, but decided that it would be nice to have a proper certificate.

After some correspondence back and forth, we have now secured a two year certificate for LWJGL, free of charge!

The applets and webstart demos/extensions have been updated on the site.

Technically, there are some "legal entity" requirements to getting a certificate. So to make all of this happen, I have registered a "frivillig forening" (volunteer organisation) in Denmark which satisfies the "legal entity" requirement. This is why the certificate now says that LWJGL is based in Odense, Fyn, DK :)

princec


Fool Running

Quote from: Matzon on November 08, 2010, 20:34:19
After some correspondence back and forth, we have now secured a two year certificate for LWJGL, free of charge!
Nice job, Matzon. 8)
Programmers will, one day, rule the world... and the world won't notice until its too late.Just testing the marquee option ;D

smith

Just wondering when we are going to get a new LWJGL release signed with this cert given the Oddlabs one has now expired.

Matzon

huh? - 2.6 is signed with the new cert! as is applet and lwjgl jnlp extension. Think you're caching too much

kappa

Just to clarify a little, the LWJGL 2.6 downloadable jars on sourceforge haven't been updated yet and don't contain the new lwjgl certificate so they still have the old oddlabs certificate.

The jars from the applet at http://lwjgl.org/applet or the lwjgl jnlp (as mentioned above) are signed with the new lwjgl certificate.

Matzon

hmm, I thought the 2.6 ones were ok - crap...

well basically everything but the downloadable zips are using the new signature then - I think ...

Should prob do a new release soon then. But not much terribly exciting new ?

kappa

yeh, only a few tiny changes/tweaks, could maybe just do a minor release 2.6.1.

smith

You could just replace the source forge jars with properly signed ones.

Mickelukas

There has been lots of bug fixes too though, I wouldn't mind a 2.6.1 (kind of like a service pack to 2.6)

Mike