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 would be a better name for the explanatory file.
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:20 PM, James Bognar <james.bog...@salesforce.com>
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 4:48 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote:
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 which could be edited. Some ways I've seen used
elsewhere to try to better propagate license/ownership:
* Comments on the issue-tracker issue that introduced them citing
origin/source (typically for images that are copied, not created)
* Entry in LICENSE/NOTICE (shouldn't be done unnecessarily, of course)
* A README in the same directory with relevant info
If the images are of the podling's creation, I wouldn't be particularly
worried. The copyright notice on your source-release and LICENSE are
sufficient to inform downstream consumers.
Probably not the answer you're looking for, but hope it helps :)
- Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
James Bognar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
