[jira] [Resolved] (XMLBEANS-639) add license/notice to sources and javadoc jars

[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLBEANS-639?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] PJ Fanning resolved XMLBEANS-639. - Resolution: Fixed > add license/notice to sources and javadoc j

[jira] [Created] (XMLBEANS-639) add license/notice to sources and javadoc jars

PJ Fanning created XMLBEANS-639: --- Summary: add license/notice to sources and javadoc jars Key: XMLBEANS-639 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLBEANS-639 Project: XMLBeans Issue Type

[GitHub] [poi] dependabot[bot] commented on pull request #307: Bump com.github.jk1.dependency-license-report from 2.0 to 2.1

dependabot[bot] commented on pull request #307: URL: https://github.com/apache/poi/pull/307#issuecomment-1054347906 OK, I won't notify you again about this release, but will get in touch when a new version is available. If you'd rather skip all updates until the next major or minor

[GitHub] [poi] asfgit closed pull request #307: Bump com.github.jk1.dependency-license-report from 2.0 to 2.1

asfgit closed pull request #307: URL: https://github.com/apache/poi/pull/307 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[GitHub] [poi] dependabot[bot] opened a new pull request #307: Bump com.github.jk1.dependency-license-report from 2.0 to 2.1

dependabot[bot] opened a new pull request #307: URL: https://github.com/apache/poi/pull/307 Bumps com.github.jk1.dependency-license-report from 2.0 to 2.1. [![Dependabot compatibility score](https://dependabot-badges.githubapp.com/badges/compatibility_score?dependency-name

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #8 from PJ Fanning --- I benchmarked Arrays.fill and the stackoverflow solution and it appears that Arrays.fill has higher throughput (tested on Mac with Zulu JDK 1.8.0_302 and 17.0.0). -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 Axel Howind changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #6 from Axel Howind --- IMHO this method is just adding noise that distracts the reader, and it would only be of use were it really faster than the obvious alternative. AFAIK, recent hotspot versions translate the code in

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #5 from PJ Fanning --- Not great to remove the stackoverflow links but it seems the pragmatic solution. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Beeker --- Although I know about [1], I think the technical consequence of removing all links to SO to hide such cases is inadequate. Especially as I'm the one, who add those links. On the other hand, wasting time

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #3 from PJ Fanning --- Arrays.fill was a lot slower when the code was added to stackoverflow. Things may have changed. I do understand the concern about licensing but to argue over such a small block of code. If the writer of the

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 --- Comment #2 from Axel Howind --- At first glance, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just remove that method and use [`Arrays.fill(byte[] a, byte

[Bug 65796] License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 PJ Fanning changed: What|Removed |Added OS||All --- Comment #1 from PJ Fanning ---

[Bug 65796] New: License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/blip/PICT.java

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65796 Bug ID: 65796 Summary: License violation in ../poi-scratchpad/src/main/java/org/apache/poi/hslf/bl ip/PICT.java Product: POI Version: unspecified

AW: Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable

in the future if time allows. -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: PJ Fanning Gesendet: Montag, 20. September 2021 13:28 An: dev@poi.apache.org Betreff: Re: Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable Hi Stefan, I believe both classes you mentioned have been changed

Re: Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable

    *  There is a comment with a stackoverflow link and there are several lines of code which are completely equal with the suggested solution from stackoverflow     *  Problem: Code on Stackoverflow is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable

with a stackoverflow link and there are several lines of code which are completely equal with the suggested solution from stackoverflow * Problem: Code on Stackoverflow is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License, which is kind

Re: Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable

Hi Devs, I've changed BitmapImageRenderer locally, but I need to find the test files which trigger mode 1 (grayscale) and mode 2 (truncated). I've added the handling based on the regression tests on 20.06.2016 - so if you would have the test-results from back then, it might be easier to

Possible License Problems in BitmapImageRenderer and StringCodepointsIterable

with a stackoverflow link and there are several lines of code which are completely equal with the suggested solution from stackoverflow * Problem: Code on Stackoverflow is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License, which is kind

Re: rat license check failing

not a checked-in file - so > it surprises me that we'd want to check it has license text. > > > > Is it ok to exclude this from the rat license check? > > > > Regards, > > PJ > > > > -

Re: rat license check failing

. This is not a checked-in file - so it surprises me that we'd want to check it has license text. Is it ok to exclude this from the rat license check? Regards, PJ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org

rat license check failing

to check it has license text. Is it ok to exclude this from the rat license check? Regards, PJ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

Re: License file

Maybe I should have added that I reviewed and updated our LICENSE file. Although I somehow intended to rush the release, I think I can put some cycles in to adapt our LICENSE strategy, especially as it's added to each maven artifact. Specifically I'd like to get rid of EPL 2.0 (https

Re: License file

> On Jan 12, 2021, at 10:42 AM, Nick Burch wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Andreas Beeker wrote: >> do we really need that long LICENSE file? >> >> Junit / Jacoco and few others aren't necessary to run POI and only used to >> build it. >> >

Re: License file

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Andreas Beeker wrote: do we really need that long LICENSE file? Junit / Jacoco and few others aren't necessary to run POI and only used to build it. Do utility libraries need to be included in the official LICENSE file? If we ship them we need to detail them May we

License file

Hi Devs, do we really need that long LICENSE file? Junit / Jacoco and few others aren't necessary to run POI and only used to build it. Do utility libraries need to be included in the official LICENSE file? May we create an additional LICENSE file for development with POI. Andi

[jira] [Closed] (XMLBEANS-509) License problem with xmlbeans-2.6.0.jar because there is a SUN license on it

some time and we do not know where an incorrect license was actually included here, thus I am resolving this for now, please reopen with more information if this is still a problem for you. > License problem with xmlbeans-2.6.0.jar because there is a SUN lice

Re: License

On 06.04.2016 01:17, Javen O'Neal wrote: > If trunk is not open or we need to create a beta 1 RC 2, some svn merging > will be needed to exclude these post-beta1 commits. So between the lines you suggest that the changes to the license file are necessary for beta1. I don't mind having t

Re: License

finished. > As we had some extensive testing for the trunk and #58787 seems to be a > bit elaborate, > I would like to also postpone it to beta2. > > Is this ok for you? > > Andi > > On 05.04.2016 08:47, Javen O'Neal wrote: > > Also, do we need to add bouncy castle,

Re: License

elaborate, I would like to also postpone it to beta2. Is this ok for you? Andi On 05.04.2016 08:47, Javen O'Neal wrote: > Also, do we need to add bouncy castle, jaxb, or any other 3rd party libs to > our LICENSE or NOTICE file? > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/poi/trunk/legal/NOTICE

Re: License

On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Javen O'Neal wrote: Also, do we need to add bouncy castle, jaxb, or any other 3rd party libs to our LICENSE or NOTICE file? Depends on the license that they're under Best resources for looking up what needs what is a mixture of http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html

Re: License

Also, do we need to add bouncy castle, jaxb, or any other 3rd party libs to our LICENSE or NOTICE file? https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/poi/trunk/legal/NOTICE?view=markup On Apr 4, 2016 11:44 PM, "Javen O'Neal" <javenon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Looks like our LICENSE [1] file sti

License

Looks like our LICENSE [1] file still references ooxml-schemas-1.1, when we're currently on 1.3 [2]. Are any other changes needed besides incrementing the number? [1] https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/poi/trunk/legal/LICENSE?view=log [2] https://builds.apache.org/job/POI/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact

[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 Dominik Stadler changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 --- Comment #3 from Nick Burch apa...@gagravarr.org --- Currently, we use XMLBeans to automatically generate Java source code based on the XSDs, then compile and use that resulting code. That intermediate source code is open source, available,

[Bug 57862] New: Unclear XSD files license

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 Bug ID: 57862 Summary: Unclear XSD files license Product: POI Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal

[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 --- Comment #1 from Nick Burch apa...@gagravarr.org --- The XSDs, as part of the OOXML specification, are covered by the Microsoft Open Specification Promise - https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-gb/openspecifications/dn646765 You can find the

[Bug 57862] Unclear XSD files license

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57862 --- Comment #2 from Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- I guess the real question here is whether these files can be modified or not. That's not clear from the links you sent. I'd agree that they seem to be freely distributable, but without

[Bug 55053] Broken links in legal/LICENSE

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55053 Nick Burch apa...@gagravarr.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756 Bug 46756 depends on bug 46758, which changed state. Bug 46758 Summary: Use the StAX API jar from Apache Geronimo https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46758 What|Old Value |New Value

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

JSR 173 anymore, I removed its entries from LICENSE and NOTICE. The XMLBeans NOTICE file is a bit complex. I've tried my best to identify which parts of XMLBeans are included in POI and to include only the relevant entries from the XMLBeans NOTICE. You've included the correct entries. POI only

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

with the fix from Bug 46758. Since we don't use BEA's JSR 173 anymore, I removed its entries from LICENSE and NOTICE. There is still a reference to BEA in the NOTICE: This product contains parts that were originally based on software from BEA. Copyright (c) 2000-2003, BEA Systems, http

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756 --- Comment #4 from Yegor Kozlov ye...@dinom.ru 2009-02-24 07:27:46 PST --- There is still a reference to BEA in the NOTICE: This product contains parts that were originally based on software from BEA. Copyright (c) 2000-2003,

JSR 173 API jar (Was: [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files)

Hi, --- Comment #1 from David Fisher dfis...@jmlafferty.com 2009-02-22 19:09:50 PST --- I see that Apache Geronimo uses Woodstox 3.2.0. From http://woodstox.codehaus.org/FAQ it says that it is available with an ASL 2.0 license. The licensing problem is more with the JSR 173 API jar

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756 Jukka Zitting ju...@apache.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||46758 --

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 46756] Improved LICENSE and NOTICE files

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46756 --- Comment #1 from David Fisher dfis...@jmlafferty.com 2009-02-22 19:09:50 PST --- Thanks! I see that Apache Geronimo uses Woodstox 3.2.0. From http://woodstox.codehaus.org/FAQ it says that it is available with an ASL 2.0 license