Re: Images in source code.

From: Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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 chan

Re: Images in source code.

From: Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com.INVALID> 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/ ? Ex

Re: Images in source code.

re to locate any tool that can add metadata tag to an > Image would be appreciated > > > Thanks, > > Martin > __ > > > > > From: Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com<mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com>> > Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 8:4

Re: Images in source code.

_ From: Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com<mailto: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

Re: Images in source code.

:* Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com> > *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 > &

Re: Images in source code.

Martin __ From: Martin Gainty <mgai...@hotmail.com> 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 b

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

From: James Bognar <james.bog...@salesforce.com> 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 own

Re: Images in source code.

> > > > ? > > > > Martin > > __ > > > > > > > > ____ > > From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM > > To:

Re: Images in source code.

__ > From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > 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 <apache@gmail.com> wrote: &g

Re: Images in source code.

at-plugin:0.13-SNAPSHOT:rat. Description: > > ? > > Martin > __ > > > > > From: John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 9:46 AM > To: general@incubat

Re: Images in source code.

pache.org> 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 <apache@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > Everything that is not explicitly called out in the top level NOTICE and &

Re: Images in source code.

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,

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 license. > > Adding a file to this directory might mislead people into thinking

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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.

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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

Re: Images in source code.

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

Images in source code.

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?