readded dev@pdfbox
Am 22.08.2017 um 19:14 schrieb Jörg Henne:
Am 19.08.2017 um 17:07 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
The following files don't have a license header:
Good catch. Tracked as https://github.com/levigo/jbig2-imageio/issues/46
What about the binary test files in src/test/resources/? I assume their
license is cleared as well, isn't it?
That's what I assumed as well, but upon re-checking, things no longer seem to be
so clear. I'm tracking this question as
https://github.com/levigo/jbig2-imageio/issues/48
Maybe you guys can help me with this problem or let me know how you deal with
it.
Is there any jbig2-viewer available?
Are these testfiles somehow special, do they trigger some special processing
within the plugin or are they just a bunch of jbig2 files and could be replaced
by others
The files seem to fall into three categories:
1. Files from the original test suite. While the copyright status of the file
isn't problematic, the status of the content seems to be muddy in some cases.
- Files containing representations of public U.S. government documents should
be in the public domain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government
- The same applies to representations of U.S. patents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_on_the_content_of_patents_and_in_the_context_of_patent_prosecution
- 004.jb2 and 005.jb2 seem problematic but may be covered by some exemption.
- amb.bmp no idea
amb.bmp seems problematic as it looks like a promo photo of Ally McBeal aka
Callista Flockhart.
2. Files provided to us with the permission to use them for testing purposes
201231100*.jb2 is the only case, seems to be a public U.S. document anyway
and therefore in the public domain. I have not contacted the original provider
of the files for the simple reason that his or her e-mail address has been lost
when the Googlecode site went into archived state. >
3. Files with content so trivial that copyright should not be an issue, i.e.
fragments of bitstreams, isolated segments, trivial test images
This isn't a question of copyright but of license and/or privacy.
Please provide the following paperwork:
- software-grant, see [1]
- an iCLA for all potential committers, which aren't apache committers yet,
see [2]
- a CCLA if necessary, see [3]
I'm working on that.
Jörg
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
