mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lausen, Leonard" <>
Subject Re: Severe legal issues with releases on
Date Mon, 11 May 2020 17:44:24 GMT
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 8:06 AM Markus Weimer <> wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:50 PM Tianqi Chen <> wrote:
> >
> > Seems the conclusion so far is only release source through apache and
> > release the binary builds as third party(as a different community, a
> > company or individual)
> Yes, that is the precedent established in multiple projects. I think
> it might still be worthwhile to pursue an exception from nvidia,
> though. Do we have any nvidia employees on the list that can inquire
> about that?

Triston helped to establish contact with the Nvidia Legal team and we're
currently waiting for a response on their interpretation of the EULA as well as
the possibility of an exception. It would be great to have an "internal lobby"
for granting an GCC Runtime Library Exception style exception for nvcc in
general, or at least ASF in particular.

On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 08:52 -0700, Tianqi Chen wrote:
> I agree, In the meanwhile. @Leonard I think we should ask trademark@apache
> whether they would approve the use of
> repo names: mxnet-cu80 mxnet-cu10 etc, given that
> - they are distributed by individual contributors(as individuals and not as
> ASF PPMC members),
> - marked as thirdparty binary
> - Build from the original ASF source with no modifications, while with an
> "optional build config" that enables CUDA acceleration support, which
> abides the rules in

Currently asks similar questions
to the Legal Team, but there is no conclusion yet. One open question in LEGAL-
515 is if the CD system managed in the project's source code at can be seen as
releasing third-party binaries given that it doesn't run on Apache
infrastructure. In the "worst case" the CD in the ASF repo must be restricted to
build ASF-compliant binaries and third-parties need to manage their own CD
outside the Apache repo.

Once we have clarity on that, let's continue clarifying with the trademarks@

Best regards
View raw message