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 Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:06:45 GMT
Henri,
Thanks for the detailed information,
Based on your review and the comments on the general VOTE thread, I have
made some changes to the top level LICENSE file in this PR
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701>.

The final changes to the LICENSE file can be summarized as follows -

1. I have reverted commit 8930d96 (PR #9484)

2. Revisited some comments from previous release which are now relevant and
made appropriate changes - based on points 8-11 and 13 to 19 in this wiki,
section E
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses>

3. Ran a fresh search for dependencies with a separate license and added
the missing ones to the LICENSE file.

4. Reviewed the Apache Policy and confirmed to the best of my understanding
the LICENSE file complies with the guidelines.


Please let me know if there are any other major issues in this file or any
other issue that should be addressed. I want to be sure I fix these before
the next RC is created.


Thanks,

Meghna Baijal

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Hen <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> I think we should revert the license file to the previous, and improve from
> there. The policy is:
>
> "The LICENSE file MUST contain the full text of the Apache License 2.0
> <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt>.
>
> When a package bundles code under several licenses, the LICENSE file MUST
> contain details of all these licenses. For each component which is not
> Apache licensed, details of the component MUST be appended to the LICENSE
> file.
> The component license itself MUST either be appended or else stored
> elsewhere in the package with a pointer to it from the LICENSE file, e.g.
> if the license is long."
>
> Looking at Justin's feedback linked on the wiki page, his objection was
> missing items in the license file.
>
> I know there was a suggestion to remove the listing of components to make
> it harder to have missing items, but that shouldn't mean removing license
> text. If two components don't have exactly the same license text then they
> are not the same license. Most commonly nowadays that means that you can't
> merge BSD licenses together, and sometimes can't merge MIT together
> (depending on variants and how you handle the copyright statements).
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Henri,
> >
> > Thank you for your review.
> > As I have detailed in this PR
> > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9484>, the previous
> > version
> > of the LICENSE file contained a list of packages which were using the BSD
> > license (based on the license text), along with the whole content of the
> > actual license (Warp-CTC, Caffe, Cub, Sphinx etc). Since it was decided
> to
> > remove this list, to be safe, I left one copy of the BSD license text in
> > there. I agree this might not be the right way of doing it and would be
> > happy to fix it.
> >
> > However, there has been a lot of back and forth on this top level LICENSE
> > and NOTICE file and it would be great if you could help me understand the
> > Apache policy correctly and fix these appropriately.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Meghna Baijal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Hen <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The last paragraph of the LICENSE looks suspect. I doubt we've taken
> code
> > > from the BSD project. I would suggest deleting that last paragraph.
> > >
> > > With MIT and BSD licenses you do have to be careful that the text of
> each
> > > is the same. Each term is often used for a family of related licenses.
> > >
> > > Additionally each of MIT and BSD typically has a Copyright
> > > statement accompanying it. If the rules say to remove that from
> LICENSE,
> > > then we should be adding it to the NOTICE.
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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