Will CentOS 6 also have the same wallpaper packages that came with RHEL 6? The reason that I ask is that I love the new wallpapers in RHEL 6, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or anything to the point that CentOS can't import them in the build.
Thanks, and keep up the good work. I use CentOS alongside RHEL at work, and it is a fantastic project.
-Kenny
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:39:57 -0500 Kenneth Armstrong digimars@gmail.com wrote:
Will CentOS 6 also have the same wallpaper packages that came with RHEL 6? The reason that I ask is that I love the new wallpapers in RHEL 6, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or anything to the point that CentOS can't import them in the build.
Thanks, and keep up the good work. I use CentOS alongside RHEL at work, and it is a fantastic project.
-Kenny
Hi Kenny,
I don't know if the wallpaper packages from RHEL 6 will carry over to CentOS 6 or not, however if they don't you could always copy them from /usr/share/backgrounds on a RHEL 6 install. I suspect the default ones outside of the separate folders (i.e. nature, cosmos, etc.) may be copyrighted images but I just looked at the ones from the beta and don't see a specific copyright mark so it's hard to say. I think the ones in the folders are pretty standard gnome wallpaper images.
If you're just going to use it as a personal desktop wallpaper on CentOS I would think that'd be o.k.; but IANAL. I suspect someone more familiar with what will be included in CentOS 6 will be able to say for sure.
Cia W
On 01/02/2011 03:38 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:39:57 -0500 Kenneth Armstrongdigimars@gmail.com wrote:
Will CentOS 6 also have the same wallpaper packages that came with RHEL 6? The reason that I ask is that I love the new wallpapers in RHEL 6, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or anything to the point that CentOS can't import them in the build.
Thanks, and keep up the good work. I use CentOS alongside RHEL at work, and it is a fantastic project.
-Kenny
Hi Kenny,
I don't know if the wallpaper packages from RHEL 6 will carry over to CentOS 6 or not, however if they don't you could always copy them from /usr/share/backgrounds on a RHEL 6 install. I suspect the default ones outside of the separate folders (i.e. nature, cosmos, etc.) may be copyrighted images but I just looked at the ones from the beta and don't see a specific copyright mark so it's hard to say.
The one very specific example I'm aware of is the Luis Argerich one of beach/storm/lighting which I've chosen to use initially as the default for my SL6alpha derived LiveDVD/USB distro. On it, there is a specific permissive creative commons license marked on the background itself. I'm actually unsure if it allows removing that mark (for aesthetics) and placing it in an accompanying license text file, but I did take the liberty of moving it somewhere where it isn't covered up by my gnome-panel.
In general I'm guessing that RH is pretty good about segregating the stuff that isn't redistributable. I.e. I've watched the evolution across recent fedora releases that was more or less designed to make brandstripping redistributor's lives easier. Not as easy yet as 'rpm -e --nodeps redhat* ; yum -y install generic-*', but getting closer.
-dmc http://cloudsession.com/dawg
I think the
ones in the folders are pretty standard gnome wallpaper images.
If you're just going to use it as a personal desktop wallpaper on CentOS I would think that'd be o.k.; but IANAL. I suspect someone more familiar with what will be included in CentOS 6 will be able to say for sure.
Cia W
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Thanks all, I knew that I could copy them over myself, I just didn't know if CentOS would be importing them as part of the build so as to save me that step.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Douglas McClendon dmc.centos@filteredperception.org wrote:
On 01/02/2011 03:38 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:39:57 -0500 Kenneth Armstrongdigimars@gmail.com wrote:
Will CentOS 6 also have the same wallpaper packages that came with RHEL 6? The reason that I ask is that I love the new wallpapers in RHEL 6, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or anything to the point that CentOS can't import them in the build.
Thanks, and keep up the good work. I use CentOS alongside RHEL at work, and it is a fantastic project.
-Kenny
Hi Kenny,
I don't know if the wallpaper packages from RHEL 6 will carry over to CentOS 6 or not, however if they don't you could always copy them from /usr/share/backgrounds on a RHEL 6 install. I suspect the default ones outside of the separate folders (i.e. nature, cosmos, etc.) may be copyrighted images but I just looked at the ones from the beta and don't see a specific copyright mark so it's hard to say.
The one very specific example I'm aware of is the Luis Argerich one of beach/storm/lighting which I've chosen to use initially as the default for my SL6alpha derived LiveDVD/USB distro. On it, there is a specific permissive creative commons license marked on the background itself. I'm actually unsure if it allows removing that mark (for aesthetics) and placing it in an accompanying license text file, but I did take the liberty of moving it somewhere where it isn't covered up by my gnome-panel.
In general I'm guessing that RH is pretty good about segregating the stuff that isn't redistributable. I.e. I've watched the evolution across recent fedora releases that was more or less designed to make brandstripping redistributor's lives easier. Not as easy yet as 'rpm -e --nodeps redhat* ; yum -y install generic-*', but getting closer.
-dmc http://cloudsession.com/dawg
I think the
ones in the folders are pretty standard gnome wallpaper images.
If you're just going to use it as a personal desktop wallpaper on CentOS I would think that'd be o.k.; but IANAL. I suspect someone more familiar with what will be included in CentOS 6 will be able to say for sure.
Cia W
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Hello, The backgrounds are in the redhat-logo's rpm. The license for that rpm is "Copyright 1999-2010 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved." The description of that rpm says "Licensed only for approved usage, see COPYING for details."
So, is it approved for CentOS or RedHat? Here is what it says in COPYING
"Red Hat®, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and the Shadowman logo, either separately or in combination, are hereinafter referred to as "Red Hat Trademarks" and are trademarks of Red Hat, Inc., registered in the United States and other countries.
The redhat-logos package ("Package") contains images that are or include the Red Hat Trademarks and Red Hat trade dress. You are granted the right to use the Package only during the normal operation of software programs that call upon the Package. No other copyright or trademark license is granted herein.
NO WARRANTY...." And goes on about how it is provided "as is"
So, can we use the background or not?
These backgrounds don't contain any reference to RedHat, or the Shadowman Logo, so it clearly doesn't fall under the Trademark law.
But the second paragraph talks about "Trade Dress", and I had to look that up.
http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/tradedress.html
"Under trademark law, the total commercial image of a product is known by the term "trade dress." Trade dress refers to the manner in which a product -- or place of business -- is "dressed up" to go to market."
So, in my opinion, I believe the RedHat backgrounds fall under the "Trade Dress" law. They are the way that RHEL is "dressed up" to go to market.
So in short. I believe both Scientific Linux and CentOS have to change the default background.
Troy Dawson
Kenneth Armstrong wrote:
Thanks all, I knew that I could copy them over myself, I just didn't know if CentOS would be importing them as part of the build so as to save me that step.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Douglas McClendon dmc.centos@filteredperception.org wrote:
On 01/02/2011 03:38 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 14:39:57 -0500 Kenneth Armstrongdigimars@gmail.com wrote:
Will CentOS 6 also have the same wallpaper packages that came with RHEL 6? The reason that I ask is that I love the new wallpapers in RHEL 6, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted or anything to the point that CentOS can't import them in the build.
Thanks, and keep up the good work. I use CentOS alongside RHEL at work, and it is a fantastic project.
-Kenny
Hi Kenny,
I don't know if the wallpaper packages from RHEL 6 will carry over to CentOS 6 or not, however if they don't you could always copy them from /usr/share/backgrounds on a RHEL 6 install. I suspect the default ones outside of the separate folders (i.e. nature, cosmos, etc.) may be copyrighted images but I just looked at the ones from the beta and don't see a specific copyright mark so it's hard to say.
The one very specific example I'm aware of is the Luis Argerich one of beach/storm/lighting which I've chosen to use initially as the default for my SL6alpha derived LiveDVD/USB distro. On it, there is a specific permissive creative commons license marked on the background itself. I'm actually unsure if it allows removing that mark (for aesthetics) and placing it in an accompanying license text file, but I did take the liberty of moving it somewhere where it isn't covered up by my gnome-panel.
In general I'm guessing that RH is pretty good about segregating the stuff that isn't redistributable. I.e. I've watched the evolution across recent fedora releases that was more or less designed to make brandstripping redistributor's lives easier. Not as easy yet as 'rpm -e --nodeps redhat* ; yum -y install generic-*', but getting closer.
-dmc http://cloudsession.com/dawg
I think the
ones in the folders are pretty standard gnome wallpaper images.
If you're just going to use it as a personal desktop wallpaper on CentOS I would think that'd be o.k.; but IANAL. I suspect someone more familiar with what will be included in CentOS 6 will be able to say for sure.
Cia W
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
2011/1/4 Troy Dawson dawson@fnal.gov:
So, can we use the background or not?
Hi Troy,
That's a good question.
To be safe I would ask directly to Red Hat.
Best regards,
Morten
One would think that Red Hat would monitor a mailing list such as this.
-- Travis
On 1/4/2011 4:46 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
2011/1/4 Troy Dawsondawson@fnal.gov:
So, can we use the background or not?
Hi Troy,
That's a good question.
To be safe I would ask directly to Red Hat.
Best regards,
Morten _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:48, Travis Heinstrom theinstrom@hollisinteractive.com wrote:
One would think that Red Hat would monitor a mailing list such as this.
But what would "it" say? Ever since Red Hat Linux it has been that the various "logos" packages have been non-free and everything in them needed to be changed. And after the EL-3 fiasco, CentOS has usually made sure that the logos were completely changed so as not to deal with lawyers and their demonic brethren (no offence intended Russ :)).
speaking as myself (who helped on this for EL-5), not as a Red Hat employee.
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 14:48, Travis Heinstrom theinstrom@hollisinteractive.com wrote:
One would think that Red Hat would monitor a mailing list such as this.
But what would "it" say? Ever since Red Hat Linux it has been that the various "logos" packages have been non-free and everything in them needed to be changed. And after the EL-3 fiasco, CentOS has usually made sure that the logos were completely changed so as not to deal with lawyers and their demonic brethren (no offence intended Russ :)).
speaking as myself (who helped on this for EL-5), not as a Red Hat employee.
Hi, Stephen
No offense ever taken as to lawyer jokes -- The best lawyers are loved those who are their client, and feared by the other side. If one wants (needs) love from all, one does not seek it through practicing law
The fun of CentOS (and of Linux with the Red Hat 'testers-list' and Free and Open Source generally) was in solving really hard technical challenges. I have answered all these questions over and over, publicly and privately, and no-one reads them, or thinks about the answers, or is willing to try to follow the paths that I, and others, and you with your work in mark elidement, have conducted in the open
I've see no community interest in filing the needed bugs of identifying and classifying what needs to be changed.
Because of that, perhaps ten days ago, I sat down to build the tool to address letting a person have a SSO registration, email confirm ping, self-service password resend and reset, [a long time CentOS need -- this part up and running fine in my testing ]. Still do roll in were code to explode artwork, strip ImageMagick 'identify' information, display a automatically created altered (similar to the Postal Service's former requirements on reproducing its stamp art in catalogs) version of that image, and to have a commmunity ability to simply look at pictures, add minimal comments, and triage items of question in a form leaving a durable trail.
Perhaps, I thought, that bar would be low enough to get participation --- Typical geek approach, seeking a techincal approach to a culture problem ;( We've tried this over and over again how many times and end back in the sewer -- the IRC channel held promise at first, but the whiners, OT,and 'spoon-feed me' masses won out as some in the project leadership loosened the will to stay on topic, and the channel was lost
I started at 9 on that tool, and had the SSO proof of concept working by 1300 -- then I left the office to spend time with a couple visiting grandkids to a local firehouse. Long story short, I mis-estimated my ability to control the speed of descent of my mass down their firepole, and seriously damaged an ankle. I have just recovered enough to scan through ML traffic and cherrypick what to reply on. I'll get back to the tool, but life has to take precedence here for me for a while
More exciting to me, one new person has stepped up and actually set up a new approach autobuilder, communicating with me, and is making what I can only call great progress
But will or would that person's 'fruit' be CentOS? I just don't know, but as all CentOS 'community' 'at large' seems to contain are complainers, and people who carp that the free meal CentOS serves does not please their pallete, and yet do not leave. And people who know better who won't hold to leading an effort to 'shun and rebuke' such behaviour
One thing the enforced idle time has done is caused me to think that perhaps it is I that is wrong, and that I err in an expectation of a community publishing their failures and successes, and learning by doing the homework, and setting up the exercise labs, and not just reading and nodding their head thinking: I could do that but rather: I did this, and these are my specifics still outstanding
I sent specific and detailed instructions to a regular whiner here, on the EPEL list and in the Red Hat tracker with his solutions, and never even received an acknowledgement, let alone a thanks -- the mail delivery log is quite explicit that my advice was accepted by that person's mailserver ...
The current thread this is on is thoughtless personified (as in: posted without thinking through the implications of an issue, and its discussion in certain venue). Add that to the disrespectful, un-trimmed, off topic and endless social rants in main ML, and now here, I am really soured on the [in]ability of the CentOS project to address 'poisonous people'. Perhaps the poster is hoping Red Hat will issue some 'bright line legal guidance' for free
This is bone-headed on so many levels it hurts to go through them. All facts turn on cases; Troy (who has a dog in this hunt, sort of) offered one analysis --- BUT IT IS THE ADVICE OF THE LAWYER YOU HAVE PAID that comes with a warranty behind it, and NO OTHER. And when I wrote such opinion letters, we would spend weeks getting the question and scope for a specific fact pattern narrowed down enough to even be answerable. Red Hat would be a fool it if expansively locked itself into a position here saying what is hoped to be heard; would say nothing if it appeared and said: go see your own lawyer, yet again; and would damage itself in the eyes of those whom it seeks to convert into paying customers, to make threats
I am under most serious medical instructions as to remaining prone, elevating the limb, and so forth for the next several weeks, at a minimum
Good luck, folks, and those few of whom I consider to be my friends here. You know who you are.
-- Russ herrold
On 01/04/2011 09:28 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
So in short. I believe both Scientific Linux and CentOS have to change the default background.
That's pretty much what I had come up with as well, and CentOS-6 will indeed have different wallpapers.
Having said that - if anyone wants to create new / alternative wallpaper's, feel free to do so and submit them up via bugs.centos.org; no reason why we cant have multiple options!
- KB
On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:59:53 +0000 Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 01/04/2011 09:28 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
So in short. I believe both Scientific Linux and CentOS have to change the default background.
That's pretty much what I had come up with as well, and CentOS-6 will indeed have different wallpapers.
Having said that - if anyone wants to create new / alternative wallpaper's, feel free to do so and submit them up via bugs.centos.org; no reason why we cant have multiple options!
I just submitted a couple of wallpapers for consideration, I thought maybe I should send an email so folks can comment or whatever you do with this sort of thing.
The first one is: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4699 an the 2nd one is: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4700
The first one has a textured (pattern) and the 2nd one is the same thing with the pattern made 'invisible'. I created a separate jpg of both. The Gimp xcf file is 14.5mb, and I can easily make minor modifications. They're both the same size as the 'default' wallpaper in CentOS 5.5, i.e. 2048 x 1536 px.
I'm not a pro, but I rather like the result. I even had it sitting on my LMDE desktop for a few hours (on a 19" 1440x900 Acer lcd monitor).
Cheers,
Cia W
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
I just submitted a couple of wallpapers for consideration, I thought maybe I should send an email so folks can comment or whatever you do with this sort of thing.
The logo isn't clean (shows pixel stairs) and is chopped at the edges. That at least should be changed.
I'm not sure about the 6, it sticks out a bit, but that's not a real complaint.
Ralph
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:22:09 +0100 Ralph Angenendt ralph.angenendt@gmail.com wrote:
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
I just submitted a couple of wallpapers for consideration, I thought maybe I should send an email so folks can comment or whatever you do with this sort of thing.
The logo isn't clean (shows pixel stairs) and is chopped at the edges. That at least should be changed.
I'm not sure about the 6, it sticks out a bit, but that's not a real complaint.
Thanks for the feedback. I should have compared the icon images on the wiki artwork page a little more closely. I thought that using an xpm image on the original would be better than using a png, but that wasn't the case. I just uploaded revised files.
I had the 6 stick out a bit so that it wouldn't look as if it's part of the official logo, since it's a version number and all. It can be moved if need be ...
Cia W
On 01/09/2011 05:00 AM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:22:09 +0100 Ralph Angenendtralph.angenendt@gmail.com wrote:
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
...
I'm not sure about the 6, it sticks out a bit, but that's not a real complaint.
Thanks for the feedback. I should have compared the icon images on the wiki artwork page a little more closely. I thought that using an xpm image on the original would be better than using a png, but that wasn't the case. I just uploaded revised files.
I had the 6 stick out a bit so that it wouldn't look as if it's part of the official logo, since it's a version number and all. It can be moved if need be ...
Cia W
Here some of my thoughts:
1. The logo border are not well rendered. 2. 6 can be written with the official centos font : [1] 3. the version with pattern is really ugly, it doesn't look modern.
[1] http://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Fonts#head-19ea6e03a5bda7beb28ecb11993f632a02...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:46:46 +0100 Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/2011 05:00 AM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:22:09 +0100 Ralph Angenendtralph.angenendt@gmail.com wrote:
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
...
I'm not sure about the 6, it sticks out a bit, but that's not a real complaint.
Thanks for the feedback. I should have compared the icon images on the wiki artwork page a little more closely. I thought that using an xpm image on the original would be better than using a png, but that wasn't the case. I just uploaded revised files.
I had the 6 stick out a bit so that it wouldn't look as if it's part of the official logo, since it's a version number and all. It can be moved if need be ...
Cia W
Here some of my thoughts:
- The logo border are not well rendered.
- 6 can be written with the official centos font : [1]
- the version with pattern is really ugly, it doesn't look modern.
[1] http://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/Fonts#head-19ea6e03a5bda7beb28ecb11993f632a02...
In reply to your thoughts, please advise if the 1. logo border not being well rendered is for the 1st or 2nd file? Is that for the icon with corners? If it's for the 2nd file, there's not much I can do as I got both files for the icon from the artwork wiki. I don't have the expertise to re-work it from scratch. I used the 200 px image and reduced it to 125x125.
In reply to number 2 and 3, there's now a 3rd file uploaded (co6bg1_6denmkp.jpg) to http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4699 which uses the Denmark font for the '6' version number. I had to do a bit of searching to find the font, it wasn't in the Debian repo's. I attempted to emboss it and the result wasn't good. Also attempted to match the color of the CentOS type but with the 6 being flat and the other type being raised, it didn't look right to me. So I left it as a dark purple.
Personally I prefer the 2nd upload (co6bg1a-1.jpg) with the glossy italic 6, even though the font may not be technically correct, and it may not look 'modern' enough. (?)
If someone would like the 14.5mb xcf file (just compressed to 2.7mb) to make your own revisions, please send a private email and I'll send it along. (If several people want it I may upload it to my website and send along a download link...)
Cheers, Cia
On 01/09/2011 07:07 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:46:46 +0100 Athmane Madjoudjathmanem@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/2011 05:00 AM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:22:09 +0100 Ralph Angenendtralph.angenendt@gmail.com wrote:
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
...
In reply to your thoughts, please advise if the 1. logo border not being well rendered is for the 1st or 2nd file? Is that for the icon with corners? If it's for the 2nd file, there's not much I can do as I got both files for the icon from the artwork wiki. I don't have the expertise to re-work it from scratch. I used the 200 px image and reduced it to 125x125.
In reply to number 2 and 3, there's now a 3rd file uploaded (co6bg1_6denmkp.jpg) to http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4699 which uses the Denmark font for the '6' version number. I had to do a bit of searching to find the font, it wasn't in the Debian repo's. I attempted to emboss it and the result wasn't good. Also attempted to match the color of the CentOS type but with the 6 being flat and the other type being raised, it didn't look right to me. So I left it as a dark purple.
Personally I prefer the 2nd upload (co6bg1a-1.jpg) with the glossy italic 6, even though the font may not be technically correct, and it may not look 'modern' enough. (?)
If someone would like the 14.5mb xcf file (just compressed to 2.7mb) to make your own revisions, please send a private email and I'll send it along. (If several people want it I may upload it to my website and send along a download link...)
Cheers, Cia
IMHO, the background is very good but "textured pattern" isn't, can you please upload the background without "textured pattern" or just send me the xcf and will try.
PS. I'm not a graphic designer, I only know how to work with GIMP.
My Email: athmanem (AT) gmail.com
On 01/09/2011 10:11 PM, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
On 01/09/2011 07:07 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:46:46 +0100 Athmane Madjoudjathmanem@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/09/2011 05:00 AM, Cia Watson wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 01:22:09 +0100 Ralph Angenendtralph.angenendt@gmail.com wrote:
Am 09.01.11 00:33, schrieb Cia Watson:
...
SNIP...
I've attached a modified version: "centos-6_bg.jpg" at [1]
[1] http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4699
NB.
I've tried to upload xcf.bz2 (1.6M) but without success while mantisBT said that max size is 5,000k (maybe a filter is causing this issue)
[-] Upload File Select File (Max. size: 5,000k)
Am 10.01.11 01:22, schrieb Athmane Madjoudj:
I've attached a modified version: "centos-6_bg.jpg" at [1]
Hmm. The CentOS is close to unreadable (at least for me).
I've tried to upload xcf.bz2 (1.6M) but without success while mantisBT said that max size is 5,000k (maybe a filter is causing this issue)
Might be the php behind it.
Ralph
On 01/15/2011 09:54 PM, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Am 10.01.11 01:22, schrieb Athmane Madjoudj:
I've attached a modified version: "centos-6_bg.jpg" at [1]
Hmm. The CentOS is close to unreadable (at least for me).
Yes, because of that I have updated the wallpaper (thanks to CiaW's help), see: centos-6_bg_logo_fff_v2.jpg
I've tried to upload xcf.bz2 (1.6M) but without success while mantisBT said that max size is 5,000k (maybe a filter is causing this issue)
Might be the php behind it.
I've installed mantisBT into a centos 5.5 VM, I've noticed that there's a clash between the default mantisBT max upload ($g_max_file_size = 5M) and max upload on php.ini is 2M (upload_max_filesize = 2M), so it maybe the cause of that issue.
-
Athmane Madjoudj -
Cia Watson -
Douglas McClendon -
Karanbir Singh -
Kenneth Armstrong -
Morten P.D. Stevens -
R P Herrold -
Ralph Angenendt -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Travis Heinstrom -
Troy Dawson