On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] > [18] > > >> [19] and many others > > >> > > > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/ > > > directory. > > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot > > easier to review. > > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't > > > need to name them. > > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1] > > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file. > > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in > LICENSE > > so it seemed odd to omit it. > > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of > help. > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep > > > Fair enough. > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being > listed then that's a weak argument :) >
Well, but it's a valid point. the more correct thing to do is not to list those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed unless listed specifically. > > Hen >
