incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:28:01 GMT
I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701

It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
necessary changes.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin.aws@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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