incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anirudh <anirudh2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2
Date Sat, 12 May 2018 01:35:46 GMT
Hi Justin,

I looked at the big directories that were omitted in the RAT excludes file:
contrib/* and docs/*.
In contrib/, I found a few files which don't have a license or have a
license but not the full text:
  src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h

Can you please let me know what are the guidelines for contrib directory.
Do all source files in the contrib
directory have to mandatorily have a license ?

In docs/ directory, the files that don't have a license are the .md, .html,
.js , .css, .svg.
I am assuming that these files don't need a license and thus we are good to
put them in rat excludes file.
Please let me know if my assumption is wrong.

The explanation for other items in rat excludes is available in the doc
maintained by Meghna:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses

Anirudh



On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Anirudh <anirudh2290@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Hen,
>
> Sorry I misunderstood. The doc can definitely be removed from release when
> doing tar.gz build.
> I for some reason was thinking about the release tag on github.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Hen <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build
>> script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file?
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh <anirudh2290@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Justin,
>> >
>> > We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
>> > repo, since it is a submodule.
>> > I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
>> > https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
>> > Is this acceptable for the release?
>> >
>> > For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs
>> enough
>> > or do we need to add a
>> > warning for Creative commons license when script is launched ?
>> >
>> > Anirudh
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmclean@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the
>> > code
>> > > under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include
>> > the
>> > > documentation.
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Justin
>> > >
>> > > On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh, <anirudh2290@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean <
>> > justin@classsoftware.com
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License
files
>> > > aren't
>> > > > > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user
calls
>> > some
>> > > > > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking
>> issues ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they
>> are
>> > > > > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The information regarding the license is currently added both to the
>> > > README
>> > > > of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
>> > > > Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during
>> > download
>> > > of
>> > > > these datasets?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward
to any
>> > > other
>> > > > > > suggestions you have related to this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The link (
>> > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/
>> > ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c0243
>> > > 3cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
>> > > > )
>> > > > states the following at the bottom :
>> > > >
>> > > > "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
>> > > > <http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html> guide
from
>> > the
>> > > > Google
>> > > > Web Toolkit <http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/> project. Except
as
>> > > > otherwise noted <http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions
>> >,
>> > the
>> > > > content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution
>> > > 2.5
>> > > > License <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/>."
>> > > >
>> > > > At the top it states the following ::
>> > > >
>> > > > "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under
>> the
>> > New
>> > > > BSD License <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php>."
>> > > >
>> > > > Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does
>> this
>> > > mean
>> > > > that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
>> > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Justin
>> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > ---------
>> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.
>> org
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

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