I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here. Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701
It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other necessary changes. Thanks, Meghna Baijal On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for the comments. The license issue should be fixed in the next > RC then. > > Other than that, is moving submodules like dmlc-core/nnvm/ps-lite etc. to > 3rd-party a must-have for the the next release candidate of 1.1.0? In the > original LICENSE file (MXNet 1.0.0) we explicitly state that these > submodules are provided under apache 2.0 license. Moving these submodules > requires change in multiple build configuration (cmake & make) for multiple > build targets (MXNet core / cpp-packge / amalgamation). I suggest creating > a JIRA issue for this and making sure this is addressed in the release > after 1.1.0. Is that reasonable? > > Thanks! > > Best, > Haibin > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see > > missing > > > licenses? > > > > > > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI > > would > > > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is > > > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for > > > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but > > > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell > > > what has been included or not :-) > > > > > > > Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so > > it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control. > > ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to > me. > > Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it > > doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak. > > > > > > > > > > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from > the > > > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do > > > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make > > the > > > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you > > think > > > > this is a blocker for this release? > > > > > > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote > differently. > > > <general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > > > > > > > Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get > > worse. > > > > Hen > > >
