Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.5.0.rc2
Hi, > For [1], I think we need to remove it. For [2] I have raised on legal via > JIRA[3]. Thanks. It would be nice to know why this happened, and depending on that answer there may be more work to do to get the LICENSE into shape. I’m guessing that teh project may of added all dependancies to the LICENSE file when you only need to add what is bundled in the source release. > Can we resolve these issues during the next release? Sure but’s that’s not up to me. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.5.0.rc2
Hi Justin, It’s added in this PR[1] which is trying to improve our LICENSE file. A bunch of submodules were also added and we are aware we should only include those bundled in source release. I have verified all license in the top level LICENSE file are included in source release except this MKL BLAS license. It was added by mistake since there was some confusion on MKL-DNN (Apache 2.0), MKLML(Intel simplified license) and MKL (intel simplified license). There are two related options in MXNet build flags, USE_BLAS and USE_MKLDNN, USE_BLAS has option to use full MKL BLAS, users has to install separately and it's not included in MXNet release. USE_MKLDNN=1 will use MKLDNN(included in MXNet source release). MKLDNN will donwload MKLML with intel simplified license during build time only. As per discussion here, the Intel simplified license should be removed from LICENSE file.[2] [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/13808/files#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b95aR535 [2]https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/make/config.mk#L111 On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:45 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > For [1], I think we need to remove it. For [2] I have raised on legal > via JIRA[3]. > > Thanks. It would be nice to know why this happened, and depending on that > answer there may be more work to do to get the LICENSE into shape. I’m > guessing that teh project may of added all dependancies to the LICENSE file > when you only need to add what is bundled in the source release. > > > Can we resolve these issues during the next release? > > Sure but’s that’s not up to me. > > Thanks, > Justin > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.5.0.rc2
Hi, > It’s added in this PR[1] which is trying to improve our LICENSE file. Thanks for that. > I have verified all license in the top level LICENSE file are included in > source release except this MKL BLAS license. I run the release through Fossology [1] and did some spot checks (not an exhaustive check) and it found a number of things: - [2] Seems to be BSD 3 clause not BSD 2 clause - LICENSE seems to be missing info on [3][4][5][6][7][8] (all are permissive licenses). There might be other things missing. - This file [9] may be an issue as it contains "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are not permitted.” There was not other category X license or included files that I could see. Obviously the first 2 are fix next release sort of issues, but what about the last one [9]? Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.fossology.org 2. /3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onnx/third_party/pybind11/tools/FindPythonLibsNew.cmake 3. /src/operator/contrib/erfinv-inl.h 4. /3rdparty/nvidia_cub/test/mersenne.h 5. /3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onnx/third_party/pybind11/tools/FindEigen3.cmake 6. /3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onnx/tools/protoc-gen-mypy.py 7. /src/operator/special_functions-inl.h 8. /3rdparty/tvm/3rdparty/rang/LICENSE 9 ./3rdparty/nvidia_cub/test/half.h - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: New disclaimer text
Hi, I don’t rally care what they are called but I would suggest that we use - Keep the existing one called as it is - Name the new one something like DISCLAIMER-PERMISSIVE, DISCLAIMER-ISSUES, DISCLAIMER-INITIAL, or DISCLAIMER-PROGRESS The name may be a bit long but I think it needs to clearly indicates the intent rather than just adding a single letter. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
