On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Just to be clear. The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation > > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply. > > With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of > Apache, BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO. > I'm looking at it a second time now. I just realized that half of their source release is actually coming from repos not hosted at the ASF. Hen, do you know if they have plans to move the rest over? https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/tree/a527100d7d5001efc4954848a2fc6027e48c05f4/include/dmlc The files in that directory carry no license headers on them, are hosted in an external repo. But there is an Apache license at the root. > > The 3rd party Apache licensed file should ideally have the header as > specified in the appendix of the Apache license. [1[ > > Agreed. Whats curious is they use the short form in their license file, but they used to have the long form https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/commit/d0e7fab67dc74b665fdc9840a2b0a299bc4f1763 > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply
