From: Julian Hyde
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:19 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
Can someone please log a JIRA case on RAT? As soon as this feature is in a
released version of RAT I’ll change our release process to
From: Felix Meschberger
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: james.bog...@salesforce.com
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
Here: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ ?
ExifTool by Phil Harvey - Queen&#
; __
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Gainty mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 8:49 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject:
o:mgai...@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 8:49 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
is there anyway to run maven-rat-plugin to make sure ASF licensed assets are
*not* being subverted by salesforce
http://
NAPSHOT:rat. Description:
> ?
>
> Martin
> __
>
>
>
>
> ------
> *From:* John D. Ament
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM
> *To:* general@incubator.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: Images in s
__
From: Martin Gainty
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 8:49 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
is there anyway to run maven-rat-plugin to make sure ASF licensed assets are
*not* being subverted by salesforce
http://creadur.apache.org
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:12 PM, James Bognar
wrote:
> ...The reason I asked is because we've previously been asked about ownership
> of image files during release votes, so I wasn't sure if we were supposed
> to mark them somehow...
You could create a ticket in your issue tracker to indicate the
Mike Drob wrote on 6/4/17 3:12 PM:
> Project logos are Apache Licensed, but cannot be used for "any purpose" I
> thought? They're specifically called out and most uses of trademark logos
> need to be approved by VP Brand.
Correct, although not quite exact. The Apache license itself explicitly
*ex
Mike,
Is that what Martin was talking about? Doesn't that seem pretty far off of
this thread which is about how to label images created for testing purposes?
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> Project logos are Apache Licensed, but cannot be used for "any purpose" I
> thought?
From: James Bognar
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 9:13 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
That's a good question. I've discovered that images CAN contain metadata
that includes ownership information. Rat could
gt; > __
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: John D. Ament
> > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Images in source code.
_
> From: John D. Ament
> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Images in source code.
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 PM Craig Russell wrote:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Everything that is not explicitly called out
:apache-rat-plugin:0.13-SNAPSHOT:rat. Description:
>
> ?
>
> Martin
> __
>
>
>
>
> From: John D. Ament
> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Images in sou
June 3, 2017 9:46 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Images in source code.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Everything that is not explicitly called out in the top level NOTICE and
> LICENSE files are licensed under the Apache 2.0 lic
Thanks everyone who replied.
The reason I asked is because we've previously been asked about ownership
of image files during release votes, so I wasn't sure if we were supposed
to mark them somehow.
On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:46 AM John D. Ament wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 PM Craig Russe
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:20 PM Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Everything that is not explicitly called out in the top level NOTICE and
> LICENSE files are licensed under the Apache 2.0 license.
>
> Adding a file to this directory might mislead people into thinking that
> they need to perfor
Hi James,
Everything that is not explicitly called out in the top level NOTICE and
LICENSE files are licensed under the Apache 2.0 license.
Adding a file to this directory might mislead people into thinking that they
need to perform more due diligence with other files in other directories.
My
Agreed. If I wasn't clear the first time, I did not mean to suggest to
add a file named LICENSE* in the same directory as the images.
This would be confusing for the reason Ted also mentioned. I concur with
his suggestion of "README" :)
On 6/2/17 6:16 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
I think a README
I think a README would be a better name for the explanatory file.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:20 PM, James Bognar
wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> I haven't found a metadata editor that works yet, so I'll just add a
> LICENSE.txt file to the directory. Hopefully that's enough.
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:
On 02/06/2017 22:20, James Bognar wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> I haven't found a metadata editor that works yet, so I'll just add a
> LICENSE.txt file to the directory. Hopefully that's enough.
That is more than is necessary. It might even cause confusion at some
point in the future. I would recommend a
Thanks!
I haven't found a metadata editor that works yet, so I'll just add a
LICENSE.txt file to the directory. Hopefully that's enough.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Josh Elser wrote:
> On 6/2/17 1:15 PM, James Bognar wrote:
>
>> I just added several png files to the source tree of our podl
On 6/2/17 1:15 PM, James Bognar wrote:
I just added several png files to the source tree of our podling. I
created them myself. Are there any best-practices on how to mark these as
Apache licensed?
I'm not sure of a good way to track this. I'm not sure if png supports
arbitrary metadata whi
I just added several png files to the source tree of our podling. I
created them myself. Are there any best-practices on how to mark these as
Apache licensed?
23 matches
Mail list logo
