On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:37 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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/a527100d7d5001efc4954848a2fc60 > 27e48c05f4/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. > An excellent question. I think this came up in discussions on migrating source; but I don't recall there being any decisions on list. It seems that either a) It's a second repository that needs to be created for apache-mxnet or b) it's an external dependency. There are 6 dependency repositories being pulled from dmlc. I'll raise this on dev@. Hen
