incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2018 02:33:41 GMT
Thank you for the comments. The license issue should be fixed in the next
RC then.

Other than that, is moving submodules like dmlc-core/nnvm/ps-lite etc. to
3rd-party a must-have for the the next release candidate of 1.1.0? In the
original LICENSE file (MXNet 1.0.0) we explicitly state that these
submodules are provided under apache 2.0 license. Moving these submodules
requires change in multiple build configuration (cmake & make) for multiple
build targets (MXNet core / cpp-packge / amalgamation). I suggest creating
a JIRA issue for this and making sure this is addressed in the release
after 1.1.0. Is that reasonable?

Thanks!

Best,
Haibin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Hen <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see
> missing
> > licenses?
> >
> > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI
> would
> > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is
> > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for
> > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but
> > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell
> > what has been included or not :-)
> >
>
> Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so
> it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control.
> ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to me.
> Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it
> doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak.
>
>
> >
> > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
> > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make
> the
> > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you
> think
> > > this is a blocker for this release?
> >
> > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently.
> > <general-help@incubator.apache.org>
> >
>
> Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get
> worse.
>
> Hen
>

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