incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Meghna Baijal <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0
Date Mon, 05 Feb 2018 21:48:35 GMT
Hi Justin,

Thank you for your time to review this Release Candidate.
For this Release I attempted to fix most of the pending license issues and
I have documented all the changes in this wiki -
Any comments/feedback would be very helpful.

Also, In this wiki, I have listed the files and folders (with my reasons)
that I have excluded from the Apache RAT check. Are there any files apart
from these excluded ones where you see missing licenses?
(To make the review process easier I will add a ‘rat-excludes’ file to the
src next time.)

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?

Meghna Baijal

On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Justin Mclean <>

> Hi,
> Sorry but -1 binding for me due to LICENSE issues but happy to discuss and
> change my vote depending on what other IPMC members think.
> Putting “wherever applicable” is probably not enough to compile with the
> terms of 3rd party licenses or ASF policy. Most licenses say the full text
> of the license needs to be included in order to comply with the terms of
> the license and that normally includes a copyright line. Usually files have
> the license text as the header so this is probably OK from a licensing
> point of view but I can see a number of cases here where they don’t. There
> are also several types of BSD license included not just the 2 clause BSD
> license listed in license.
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has issues
> - NOTICE has wrong year
> - source files are missing license headers
> - no unexpected binary files
> - can compile from source
> For license all the 3rd party pieces need to be listed in LICENSE. [1]
> There is also software under other licenses i.e. (zlib) that are are not
> mentioned in license.
> I’m still confused how some files are licensed as they are missing headers
> (about 600 files) and this make the release hard to review. i.e. How do you
> tell if someone forget to put an ASF header on a file or is it a 3rd party
> file and if so how is it licensed?
> Also two minor things I noticed with the vote thread:
> a) several people said they tested the release from what was on GitHub,
> the one in would be the one tested.
> b) Votes are pen for a minimum pf 72 hours not exactly 72 hours.
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 1.
> 2.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message