Thank you very much for voting, I have sent out the result.[1]
I think it's best to remove or replace those images, I have summarized all
license issues on GitHub to track and resolve before next release.[2]
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/89c17ab4a14f9004dc5ad96f07f28ac79f95f5fc9c593926c
Hi,
+1 (binding) However note the image issues below, I'll leave it up to the
project if they think it's OK to distribute these files or want to create a new
release.
I checked:
- includbatibng in name
- signature and hashes correct
- NOTICE copyright don’t include current year ("2017 and onwar
+1 (binding)
I checked:
- incubating in name
- Signatures and checksum look good
- DISCLAIMER exists
Thanks,
-Jason
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:53 AM Sheng Zha wrote:
> Dear IPMC members,
>
> Thank you for all the help in spotting the license issues. Given that they
> are relatively minor we
Dear IPMC members,
Thank you for all the help in spotting the license issues. Given that they are
relatively minor we would like to address them in the next release.
Since there is no longer any blocker, it would be great if you could continue
to vote on this release. We still need one more vot
Hi,
I'm the author of CUB, and in particular, [9] (half.h) below.
>> but what about the last one [9]?
The boilerplate no-redistribution license at top of half.h was an oversight; it
should read the same as the BSD-style headers for the rest of CUB's source
files. (It was cribbed from an internal
Hi,
> Duane Merril (author of CUB and this file in particular) sent an explanation
> to this list, but either his reply is stuck in moderation or there was some
> other technical difficulty and the message is not showing up. Below is the
> email that he sent to me.
Thanks for the explanation a
, July 17, 2019 12:58 PM
To: Przemek Tredak
Cc: Duane Merrill
Subject: FW: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.5.0.rc2
Hi Przemek, I don’t seem to be able to OAUTH to Ponymail via Google, and my
attempts to use the mailto: link seem to have sent my response below into a
black
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
exha
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 B
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
Hi Justin,
I have created 2 issues for MKL[1] and pybind[2].
For [1], I think we need to remove it. For [2] I have raised on legal via
JIRA[3].
Can we resolve these issues during the next release?
Thanks!
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15544
[2] https://github.com/apache/
Hi,
> These licenses are for using MKL (the full release) as BLAS library. This
> functionality is optional and is not enabled by default. MKL is not shipped
> in source code.
If none of the code is bundled in the release artefact why is it mentioned in
LICENSE? [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://
These licenses are for using MKL (the full release) as BLAS library. This
functionality is optional and is not enabled by default. MKL is not shipped in
source code.
-sz
On 2019/07/15 22:39:14, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was just taking at look at the release and noticed the LICENSE fi
Hi,
I was just taking at look at the release and noticed the LICENSE file includes
the "Intel® Simplified license” this includes this clause "No reverse
engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this Software is permitted.” and
there's also a "Limited patent license” mentioned which may be
Hi,
Thanks for helping validate and vote the release. I have created follow up
issue in MXNet[1] to be resolved before next release.
I think we should add note and the original license, aslo tagged the
contributor for more history.
It would be great if other IPMC members could help with the vote,
+1 binding
checked signature/checksum/disclaimer
license seems very thorough but two possible clarifications are suggested
below (*)
ran `make lib/libmxnet.so` successfully (opencv was listed as an optional
dependency but it seemed to be needed for this to work)
ran `make scalapkg` to generate Sca
+1 binding
- Verified signatures
- license looks good
- build libmxnet.so successfully
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:25 AM Sheng Zha wrote:
> Dear IPMC members,
>
> It would be great if you could help with the vote. Thank you.
>
> -sz
>
> On 2019/07/10 09:33:34, Lai Wei wrote:
> > Dear community,
Dear IPMC members,
It would be great if you could help with the vote. Thank you.
-sz
On 2019/07/10 09:33:34, Lai Wei wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.5.0, release
> candidate 2.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and appro
Hi Justin,
Not yet, I have reached out to them.
Thanks!
Best Regards
Lai
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 2:55 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did you mentors or any other IPMC members vote on this release?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
Hi,
Did you mentors or any other IPMC members vote on this release?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Dear community,
This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.5.0, release
candidate 2.
Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/50fe473a3e03c891caccb8cae8e5195bb740a4758f7688790dff70df@%3Cdev.mxnet.apa
21 matches
Mail list logo
