mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0
Date Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:11:05 GMT
Hi Sergio,

Thanks for guidance.

The binary file has been removed now.
See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper

We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
of today.

Regards,
Bhavin Thaker.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández <wikier@apache.org> wrote:

> Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
>
> * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> licensed dependency.
> * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
>
> The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some
> issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> vote for a RC2.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmclean@me.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> [15][16]
> > > [18]
> > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> I'll
> > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > > > directory.
> > > >
> > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > > > easier to review.
> > > >
> > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > don't
> > > > > need to name them.
> > > >
> > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > >
> > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > >
> > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> but
> > is
> > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > LICENSE
> > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > >
> > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> up
> > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> > > help.
> > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> something.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> MXNet
> > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> being
> > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > >
> >
> > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> list
> > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > unless listed specifically.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> >
>

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