mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Please Help Fix MXNet Licensing Issues for the next Release!
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2018 01:07:28 GMT
Marco,
Thanks a lot for looking through this ! Some comments below -

   1. *R-package:* Before we create the final tarball for the release, the
   R-package is explicitly removed from the cloned MXNet repo. The only info I
   have in this regard is that “there are some unresolved licensing issues in
   this package and cannot be released”.
   2. *Dockerfiles:* You can refer to this PR for details
   https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9500. I plan to handle
   this differently next time.
   3. *perl-package*: There were some copyright issues in the past with
   this folder. I just excluded it to be on the safer side, but I think it
   should be ok to add the ASF header here.
   4. *docs/** - Yes, agreed. I will add the licenses where needed but I
   still think its safer to exclude the folder as a whole from the RAT check.
   5. *CODEOWNERS* - agreed, will add to the list of excluded files.
   6. *appveyor.yml:* Is this file relevant anymore? I will add a license
   anyway.
   7. *tests/ci_build/pylintrc:* ok
   8. *example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
   <http://classification-predict.cc/>* - yes, mutiple opinions on this one
   during the voting process too.
   9. *gradle-wrapper *- yes, I remember that one too. I am hoping for some
   suggestion on how this can be handled without breaking anything.

Best,
Meghna

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Marco de Abreu <
marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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/image-
> classification-predict.cc:
> 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,
> Marco
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/docker/Dockerfile
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > 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 -
> >    https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> MXNet+Source+Licenses
> >    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 <
> meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All!
> > >
> > > I am currently attempting to fix the licensing issues in MXNet. These
> are
> > > being tracked in this wiki -
> > >
> > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> MXNet+Source+Licenses
> > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> MXNet+Source+Licenses
> > >*
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> >
>

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