mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 1.0 release problems and TVM
Date Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:55:24 GMT
It is mentioned in the -1 email we got for rc0 release:

Hi,

-1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled jar in a
source release.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes correct
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has issues (see below) I also note that license issues brought up
last time have not all been addressed. [22]
- NOTICE seem rather brief considering the number of Apache licensed
inclusion do any of them have NOTICE files?
- A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
[19] and many others
- A number of source look to have had the ASF header incorrectly added.
- Binary included in source release [20] Note there’s an unresolved legal
issue about this [21]

Have you run rat on this release it would of help pick up most of these
issues?

In this file [1] there’s a copyright notice but it also has an ASF header
which is a little odd. This also occurs in a number of other places.

This file [2] also look to incorrectly have an ASF header and it’s unclear
how the original code is licensed. From a quick like their seems to be many
files that incorrectly have ASF headers on them e.g. [5][6][7]
[10][12][13][14] and others.

This file [3] (and others) looks to come from the TVM project which is not
mentioned in license.

The license for this file [4] is missing from license.

The link for JQuery [8] is missing from the license. Also missing license
for these files [9][11][17] and probably others.

At this point I gave up so there may be other issues.

It also a good idea to publish your keys:
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Sat 25 Nov 07:48:02 2017 AEDT
gpg:                using RSA key 80FD81D7703DF31B
gpg: requesting key 80FD81D7703DF31B from hkps server
hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

It’s also a good idea to sign with an apache email address rather than a
gmail one.

I’m also curious about “CODEOWNERS” file as that doesn’t seem to fit with
any Apache model I’m aware of.

In “CONTRIBUTORS” there’s a long list of contributors - are their plan to
make any of these people committers?

Thanks,
Justin

1. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/perl-package/AI-MXNe
t/lib/AI/MXNet.pm
2. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/image-classi
fication/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
3. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/src/op/op_util.cc
4. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/searcht
ools_custom.js
5. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/nn/pool.h
6. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
/nn/deformable_im2col.h
7. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
/psroi_pooling-inl.h
8. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
9. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cub/test/mersenne.h
10. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cmake/Modules/FindJeMalloc.cmake
11.  ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/cmake/Modu
les/FindCrypto.cmake
12. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
decode_mxnet.sh
13. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/
io_func/convert2kaldi.py
14. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/special
_functions-inl.h
15. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/rnn/bucket_R/rnn.train.R
16. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/tests/travis/r_vignettes.R
17. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/matlab/+mxnet/private/parse_json.m
18  apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/ps-lite/tests/test_simple_app.cc
19. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/tracker/yarn
/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/dmlc/ApplicationMaster.java
20. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/apps/androi
d_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
21.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-288
22. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749


On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
wrote:

> OK, let me clarify this. NNVM now contains two part of the library, to
> facilitate the migration.
>
> - NNVM core library, which does not depend on tvm, and is what MXNet using
> now.
> - NNVM compiler, which depends on core library and tvm.
>
> So to build MXNet binary, you can simply use the current source tree,
> without worrying whether TVM submodule is in source or not. You do not have
> to ship binaries that are in TVM.
>
> I do not recall any discussion in terms of licensing problem of TVM. as far
> as I know it is Apache and follows the same license structure as nnvm did,
> so if you want to ship tvm source, please let me know what the problem is
> and we can work to fix that
>
> Tianqi
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM Gautam <gautamnitc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > MXNet-1.0 depends on nnvm @ 8d79cfd
> > <https://github.com/dmlc/nnvm/tree/8d79cfd0b42fbe9f6ad75886d49506
> > 5d5500b9dd>
> > which has TVM related commits.
> >
> > So one of the solution could be to go back in nnvm which doesn't include
> > TVM.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I mean Mxnet is not using tvm as a direct dependency. The support is
> > being
> > > done in nnvm compiler, which is not part of the release
> > >
> > > Tianqi
> > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:39 PM Tianqi Chen <tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > As far as i know Mxnet is not using tvm for now. So you can simply
> not
> > > > ship that jar
> > > >
> > > > Tianqi
> > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:38 PM Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> tvm has a jar in it that (along with other things) is blocking 1,0
> > > >> release.
> > > >> Can someone on tvm team please address this?
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, is mxnet 1.0 using tvm now?  I don't recall this being
> discussed
> > > at
> > > >> all on dev@. If not, why is it in there?  There's no licensing
> > > references
> > > >> as well, which is problematic.  Is it necessary for 1.0?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> > Gautam Kumar
> >
>

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