incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]
Date Wed, 30 Aug 2017 04:54:25 GMT
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:37 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean <justinmclean@me.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Just to be clear.  The issue in this case (not to confuse this
> situation
> > > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
> >
> > With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of
> > Apache, BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO.
> >
>
> I'm looking at it a second time now.  I just realized that half of their
> source release is actually coming from repos not hosted at the ASF.  Hen,
> do you know if they have plans to move the rest over?
>
> https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/tree/a527100d7d5001efc4954848a2fc60
> 27e48c05f4/include/dmlc
>
> The files in that directory carry no license headers on them, are hosted in
> an external repo.  But there is an Apache license at the root.
>

An excellent question. I think this came up in discussions on migrating
source; but I don't recall there being any decisions on list. It seems that
either a) It's a second repository that needs to be created for
apache-mxnet or b) it's an external dependency. There are 6 dependency
repositories being pulled from dmlc.

I'll raise this on dev@.

Hen

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message