You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@echarts.apache.org by Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> on 2020/07/02 02:43:16 UTC
[DISCUSS] Watermark by default
I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
provided using Apache
ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
translucent text in the bottom
right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know that
they are made with
ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement that
the product is
made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many users
(200,000 downloads
each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and check
the violations.
So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to help
with the branding.
If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using ECharts
elsewhere in their
product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
What do you think?
Thanks
*Ovilia*
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
On the final visualization may not be a good idea, for public usage. I
think.
Is this possible to generate the license information in the chart file but
w/o showing up?
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午10:44写道：
> I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> provided using Apache
> ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> translucent text in the bottom
> right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
>
> The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know that
> they are made with
> ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement that
> the product is
> made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many users
> (200,000 downloads
> each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and check
> the violations.
>
> So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to help
> with the branding.
> If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using ECharts
> elsewhere in their
> product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com>.
Hi Clement,
You don't have to state you are using ECharts in your product or Website
unless you wish to.
Thanks
*Ovilia*
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using ECharts
> somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
> share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> optional configuration?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> > provided using Apache
> > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > translucent text in the bottom
> > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
> >
> > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know that
> > they are made with
> > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement that
> > the product is
> > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many users
> > (200,000 downloads
> > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
> check
> > the violations.
> >
> > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to
> help
> > with the branding.
> > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> ECharts
> > elsewhere in their
> > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > *Ovilia*
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Yi Shen <sh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ovilia,
I think most of our developers will prefer not to display the watermark on
their product. They need to search the document to find out how to turn it
off.
It's the opposite of `good by default`, which is what we want in the next
5.0
Thanks
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:10 AM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sheng,
>
> Can you share more information how SkyWalking's case is different here,
> since Apache
> "doesn't force the users to show this on the product page"?
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:06 AM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
> >
> > > The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could
> Sheng
> > Wu
> > > or other
> > > mentors help answer this question?
> > >
> >
> > I think license says this,
> > https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
> > > (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
> > that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
> > attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
> > excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
> > the Derivative Works; and
> >
> > Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this
> on
> > the product page.
> > Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
> > following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
> >
> > Sheng Wu 吴晟
> > Twitter, wusheng1108
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > *Ovilia*
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <clement@gitlab.com.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> > > > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
> > ECharts
> > > > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users
> to
> > > > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> > > > optional configuration?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like
> "Charts
> > > > > provided using Apache
> > > > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > > > > translucent text in the bottom
> > > > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
> > programmatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts
> know
> > > that
> > > > > they are made with
> > > > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a
> statement
> > > that
> > > > > the product is
> > > > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
> > > users
> > > > > (200,000 downloads
> > > > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find
> and
> > > > check
> > > > > the violations.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > with the branding.
> > > > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> > > > ECharts
> > > > > elsewhere in their
> > > > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > *Ovilia*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Yi Shen
Apache ECharts(incubating) PPMC
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
Move the IP issue discussion to private ML.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:09写道：
> Hi Sheng,
>
> Can you share more information how SkyWalking's case is different here,
> since Apache
> "doesn't force the users to show this on the product page"?
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:06 AM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
>>
>> > The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
>> > information.
>> >
>> > As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could
>> Sheng Wu
>> > or other
>> > mentors help answer this question?
>> >
>>
>> I think license says this,
>> https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
>> > (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
>> that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
>> attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
>> excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
>> the Derivative Works; and
>>
>> Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this
>> on
>> the product page.
>> Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
>> following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
>>
>> Sheng Wu 吴晟
>> Twitter, wusheng1108
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > *Ovilia*
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
>> > > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
>> ECharts
>> > > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
>> > > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
>> > > optional configuration?
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like
>> "Charts
>> > > > provided using Apache
>> > > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
>> > > > translucent text in the bottom
>> > > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
>> programmatically.
>> > > >
>> > > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know
>> > that
>> > > > they are made with
>> > > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement
>> > that
>> > > > the product is
>> > > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
>> > users
>> > > > (200,000 downloads
>> > > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
>> > > check
>> > > > the violations.
>> > > >
>> > > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method
>> to
>> > > help
>> > > > with the branding.
>> > > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
>> > > ECharts
>> > > > elsewhere in their
>> > > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
>> > > >
>> > > > What do you think?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > >
>> > > > *Ovilia*
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sheng,
Can you share more information how SkyWalking's case is different here,
since Apache
"doesn't force the users to show this on the product page"?
Thanks
*Ovilia*
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:06 AM Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
>
> > The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
> > information.
> >
> > As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could Sheng
> Wu
> > or other
> > mentors help answer this question?
> >
>
> I think license says this,
> https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
> > (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
> that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
> attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
> excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
> the Derivative Works; and
>
> Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this on
> the product page.
> Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
> following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
>
> Sheng Wu 吴晟
> Twitter, wusheng1108
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > *Ovilia*
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> > > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
> ECharts
> > > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
> > > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> > > optional configuration?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> > > > provided using Apache
> > > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > > > translucent text in the bottom
> > > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
> programmatically.
> > > >
> > > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know
> > that
> > > > they are made with
> > > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement
> > that
> > > > the product is
> > > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
> > users
> > > > (200,000 downloads
> > > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
> > > check
> > > > the violations.
> > > >
> > > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to
> > > help
> > > > with the branding.
> > > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> > > ECharts
> > > > elsewhere in their
> > > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > *Ovilia*
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
+1, I agree with your conclusion.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 1, 2020, at 9:14 PM, Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you all for the discussion. I agree with most of them.
> Now I think we probably shouldn't provide watermarks.
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>
>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM SHUANG SU <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea to show a watermark by
>> default.
>>
>> (1) Suppose a website has some content that is illegal in certain local
>> law, or has some controversial content, if we have the "Apache
>> ECharts" watermark on it by default, it probably brings trouble to that
>> brand and to our community. Even if the controversial content is outside
>> but just next to the chart, it also might make final users connect it to
>> the brand (depends on the style).
>>
>> (2) It will bother the users. Users have to find a way to remove the
>> watermark, either for their own brand or for our brand.
>> And some users may be confused whether they "can" remove the watermark.
>> After all, brand is a sensitive issue, most of the developers and product
>> managers can not have enough knowledge about that. I am worried some users
>> may not intend to select an intrusive lib since there are many
>> other choices.
>>
>> (3) A default watermark might affect the visual: it might overlap with some
>> text or graphic, even if it is opacity.
>>
>> (4) Sometimes we can recognize some chart lib easily by some special
>> features and default colors. Compared to them, if echarts print "it is
>> echarts" literally, I am afraid it might bring an impression to users: it
>> is not "smart".
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ------------------------------
>> Su Shuang (100pah)
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
>>>
>>>> The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could
>> Sheng
>>> Wu
>>>> or other
>>>> mentors help answer this question?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think license says this,
>>> https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
>>>> (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
>>> that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
>>> attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
>>> excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
>>> the Derivative Works; and
>>>
>>> Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this
>> on
>>> the product page.
>>> Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
>>> following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
>>>
>>> Sheng Wu 吴晟
>>> Twitter, wusheng1108
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> *Ovilia*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <clement@gitlab.com.invalid
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
>>>>> watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
>>> ECharts
>>>>> somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users
>> to
>>>>> share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
>>>>> optional configuration?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like
>> "Charts
>>>>>> provided using Apache
>>>>>> ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
>>>>>> translucent text in the bottom
>>>>>> right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
>>> programmatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts
>> know
>>>> that
>>>>>> they are made with
>>>>>> ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a
>> statement
>>>> that
>>>>>> the product is
>>>>>> made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
>>>> users
>>>>>> (200,000 downloads
>>>>>> each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find
>> and
>>>>> check
>>>>>> the violations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method
>> to
>>>>> help
>>>>>> with the branding.
>>>>>> If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
>>>>> ECharts
>>>>>> elsewhere in their
>>>>>> product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Ovilia*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@echarts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@echarts.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com>.
Thank you all for the discussion. I agree with most of them.
Now I think we probably shouldn't provide watermarks.
Thanks
*Ovilia*
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM SHUANG SU <su...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea to show a watermark by
> default.
>
> (1) Suppose a website has some content that is illegal in certain local
> law, or has some controversial content, if we have the "Apache
> ECharts" watermark on it by default, it probably brings trouble to that
> brand and to our community. Even if the controversial content is outside
> but just next to the chart, it also might make final users connect it to
> the brand (depends on the style).
>
> (2) It will bother the users. Users have to find a way to remove the
> watermark, either for their own brand or for our brand.
> And some users may be confused whether they "can" remove the watermark.
> After all, brand is a sensitive issue, most of the developers and product
> managers can not have enough knowledge about that. I am worried some users
> may not intend to select an intrusive lib since there are many
> other choices.
>
> (3) A default watermark might affect the visual: it might overlap with some
> text or graphic, even if it is opacity.
>
> (4) Sometimes we can recognize some chart lib easily by some special
> features and default colors. Compared to them, if echarts print "it is
> echarts" literally, I am afraid it might bring an impression to users: it
> is not "smart".
>
>
> Thanks,
> ------------------------------
> Su Shuang (100pah)
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
> >
> > > The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
> > > information.
> > >
> > > As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could
> Sheng
> > Wu
> > > or other
> > > mentors help answer this question?
> > >
> >
> > I think license says this,
> > https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
> > > (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
> > that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
> > attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
> > excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
> > the Derivative Works; and
> >
> > Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this
> on
> > the product page.
> > Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
> > following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
> >
> > Sheng Wu 吴晟
> > Twitter, wusheng1108
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > *Ovilia*
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <clement@gitlab.com.invalid
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> > > > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
> > ECharts
> > > > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users
> to
> > > > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> > > > optional configuration?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like
> "Charts
> > > > > provided using Apache
> > > > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > > > > translucent text in the bottom
> > > > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
> > programmatically.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts
> know
> > > that
> > > > > they are made with
> > > > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a
> statement
> > > that
> > > > > the product is
> > > > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
> > > users
> > > > > (200,000 downloads
> > > > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find
> and
> > > > check
> > > > > the violations.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method
> to
> > > > help
> > > > > with the branding.
> > > > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> > > > ECharts
> > > > > elsewhere in their
> > > > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > *Ovilia*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by SHUANG SU <su...@gmail.com>.
In my opinion, it is probably not a good idea to show a watermark by
default.
(1) Suppose a website has some content that is illegal in certain local
law, or has some controversial content, if we have the "Apache
ECharts" watermark on it by default, it probably brings trouble to that
brand and to our community. Even if the controversial content is outside
but just next to the chart, it also might make final users connect it to
the brand (depends on the style).
(2) It will bother the users. Users have to find a way to remove the
watermark, either for their own brand or for our brand.
And some users may be confused whether they "can" remove the watermark.
After all, brand is a sensitive issue, most of the developers and product
managers can not have enough knowledge about that. I am worried some users
may not intend to select an intrusive lib since there are many
other choices.
(3) A default watermark might affect the visual: it might overlap with some
text or graphic, even if it is opacity.
(4) Sometimes we can recognize some chart lib easily by some special
features and default colors. Compared to them, if echarts print "it is
echarts" literally, I am afraid it might bring an impression to users: it
is not "smart".
Thanks,
------------------------------
Su Shuang (100pah)
------------------------------
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 11:06, Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
>
> > The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
> > information.
> >
> > As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could Sheng
> Wu
> > or other
> > mentors help answer this question?
> >
>
> I think license says this,
> https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
> > (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
> that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
> attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
> excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
> the Derivative Works; and
>
> Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this on
> the product page.
> Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
> following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
>
> Sheng Wu 吴晟
> Twitter, wusheng1108
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > *Ovilia*
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> > > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using
> ECharts
> > > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
> > > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> > > optional configuration?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> > > > provided using Apache
> > > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > > > translucent text in the bottom
> > > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out
> programmatically.
> > > >
> > > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know
> > that
> > > > they are made with
> > > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement
> > that
> > > > the product is
> > > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
> > users
> > > > (200,000 downloads
> > > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
> > > check
> > > > the violations.
> > > >
> > > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to
> > > help
> > > > with the branding.
> > > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> > > ECharts
> > > > elsewhere in their
> > > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > *Ovilia*
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Sheng Wu <wu...@gmail.com>.
Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> 于2020年7月2日周四 上午11:02写道：
> The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
> information.
>
> As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could Sheng Wu
> or other
> mentors help answer this question?
>
I think license says this,
https://github.com/apache/skywalking/blob/master/LICENSE#L100
> (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
the Derivative Works; and
Apache 2.0 is business-friendly, it doesn't force the users to show this on
the product page.
Is this triggered by the thing, Apache SkyWalking requesting BoCloud
following Apache 2.0 License requirements?
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> > watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using ECharts
> > somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
> > share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> > optional configuration?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> > > provided using Apache
> > > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > > translucent text in the bottom
> > > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
> > >
> > > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know
> that
> > > they are made with
> > > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement
> that
> > > the product is
> > > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many
> users
> > > (200,000 downloads
> > > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
> > check
> > > the violations.
> > >
> > > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to
> > help
> > > with the branding.
> > > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> > ECharts
> > > elsewhere in their
> > > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > *Ovilia*
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com>.
The watermark itself is a way to make it easier for users to share that
information.
As for whether it is required to state using ECharts inside, could Sheng Wu
or other
mentors help answer this question?
Thanks
*Ovilia*
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
> watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using ECharts
> somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
> share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
> optional configuration?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> > provided using Apache
> > ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> > translucent text in the bottom
> > right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
> >
> > The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know that
> > they are made with
> > ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement that
> > the product is
> > made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many users
> > (200,000 downloads
> > each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and
> check
> > the violations.
> >
> > So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to
> help
> > with the branding.
> > If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using
> ECharts
> > elsewhere in their
> > product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > *Ovilia*
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Watermark by default
Posted by Clement Ho <cl...@gitlab.com.INVALID>.
I'm a little confused at the proposal. Is it to add a mandatory
watermark/require users of ECharts to mention that they are using ECharts
somewhere in their product or is it just making it easier for users to
share that they are using ECharts for their charting solution as an
optional configuration?
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:44 PM Ovilia <ov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to propose adding a watermark stating something like "Charts
> provided using Apache
> ECharts (incubating)" in ECharts 5.0 which is displayed as small
> translucent text in the bottom
> right corner and developers may have a way to opt out programmatically.
>
> The reason behind this is letting more visitors to those charts know that
> they are made with
> ECharts. We recognize that many developers may not make a statement that
> the product is
> made with ECharts as the Apache license asks. Since we have so many users
> (200,000 downloads
> each week on npm), it's hard or almost impossible for us to find and check
> the violations.
>
> So, we could use the watermark as a way to provide a simple method to help
> with the branding.
> If some users prefer to opt out and maybe make a statement of using ECharts
> elsewhere in their
> product, they can do this easily with a simple option.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks
>
> *Ovilia*
>