mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marco de Abreu <>
Subject Re: Please Help Fix MXNet Licensing Issues for the next Release!
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:47:28 GMT
Hi Meghna,

thank you for driving the licensing issues!

- R-package: In the linked wiki, you're mentioning that R-package is not a
part of the release. Could you please elaborate? From my understand, all
files in the GitHub repository are part of the release.
- Dockerfiles: I just checked another Apache-project [1] and it seems like
they are successfully applying the license to dockerfiles. Do you see any
issues in doing so?
- perl-package: Same as R-package
- docs/*: Just my personal opinion, but I agree that it might not be a good
idea to have the license inside every file as some of them are directly
getting sent out. But we have some shell-scripts inside this directory, so
they'll need proper licensing.
- CODEOWNERS: This is a setting file got our GitHub repository and not part
of the release or the software itself. Thus I'd say that there's no need
for a license - especially considering that the content itself has no value.
- appveyor.yml: I'd treat this like the Jenkinsfile and apply a license.
- tests/ci_build/pylintrc: I'd add a license
- example/image-classification/predict-cpp/
It seems like Mu has had issues with the licensing of this file in the
past. Maybe consult him
- gradle-wrapper: I don't have a link, but I'm very sure that there was a
discussion regarding this jar-file during the last release.

Anybody, please feel free to correct me if I made a wrong assumption.

Best regards,


On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Meghna Baijal <>

> Hello,
> This is an update on the current status of the license fixes (all details
> in the wiki linked below)–
>    1. I am constantly updating this wiki, so you can check it at any time
>    to know the status -
>    2. All 7 PRs have been merged however if anyone has any comments on
>    these changes please let me know.
>    3. There are still 6-7 files that do not have a license and are failing
>    the RAT check. These are files I was not entirely confident about
> adding an
>    apache header to.
>    4. There is a list of file formats, files and directories that have
>    currently been excluded from the RAT check. I have mentioned the exact
>    reason for adding these to this list in the wiki. However, this list
> needs
>    to be reviewed and validated.
> *Coming Up Later –*
> *1. *Once points 3 and 4 above have been fixed, I will set up a RAT job in
> CI which will run a nightly check (This is currently being run in a local
> Jenkins setup)
> 2. I will also add a rat-excludes file to the mxnet repo so that anyone can
> run a RAT check locally to check the licenses.
> I am still looking for the MXNet community and the Mentors to review the
> open questions in the wiki and help me resolve these before the upcoming
> release!
> Thank you,
> Meghna Baijal
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> >
> wrote:
> > Hello All!
> >
> > I am currently attempting to fix the licensing issues in MXNet. These are
> > being tracked in this wiki -
> >
> > *
> > <
> >*
> >
> > You can follow the links in this wiki to find the following details -
> > 1. Links to relevant email threads which point the license issues out.
> > 2. Links to Github Issues created based on these emails.
> > 3. Apache pages which details the licensing policies.
> > 4. *The PRs created to fix these issues.* (These need review and all help
> > is welcome!)
> > 5. A table to track the high level issues and their progress.
> > 6. And a list of open *issues/questions/doubts/concerns* that need some
> > answers.
> >
> > I would appreciate any comments/ feedback/ suggestions from the community
> > regarding this work and it would be particularly helpful if you could
> > help review and validate the PRs and other planned changes.
> >
> > This is still a work in progress and there are a few files/folders that
> > are currently excluded from the Apache RAT checks. Also, there are around
> > 30 files that are still failing Apache RAT check (both lists are in the
> > wiki). If you know how to fix any of these remaining issues, please let
> me
> > know or even better create a PR!
> >
> > Do let me know if I can provide more details on any of the points.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Meghna Baijal
> >

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