Regarding the disclaimer issues, I have reviewed the 3 issues called out in the disclaimer and found that they have all been resolved. Here is a PR [1] to update the disclaimer and add the additional language describing the licensing incompatibility when building for GPU with Nvidia licensed tools/libraries.
Thanks! Sam [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/19402 On 2020/10/21 22:20:08, <kheaf...@amazon.com.INVALID> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm the author of one of the 3rd party libraries, intgemm, that is > new in 1.8. It is MIT licensed but also includes catch for testing > under Boost. MXNet doesn't compile my tests. > https://github.com/kpu/intgemm/blob/master/LICENSE > > In https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/17559 we wavered > back and forth between being a submodule and being fetched by cmake in > build. It ended up on by default for x86_64, fetched during build, and > with the LICENSE dangling a reference to the third_party directory. > We've now discussed this, including with leezu who originally suggested > fetching. It will change to a submodule and at the same time sync the > LICENSE. I hope to have a pull request opened tomorrow and the > committers say this should be in the next rc. > > Regards, > > Kenneth > > > On 2020/10/21 21:41:37, Justin Mclean <j...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > Hi,> > > > > > Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions > of the resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked > issues, all of them have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a blocking > issue if the actual issues that the DISCLAIMER-WIP links to are addressed?> > > > > The DISCLAIMER WIP needs to be keep up to date. When I looked not all > of these issues were resolved.> > > > > > Between 1.8 submodules [1] and that of 1.7 [2] there hasn't been > any addition of submodule. For the four modules with updated commits > (dmlc-core, mkldnn, nvidia-cub, onnx-tensorrt), I didn't find any > license change. What's missing?> > > > > If you compare the copyright statements between the two release > you’ll see there are a number of differences and mention of bundled 3rd > party licenses are missing from the LICENSE file.> > > > > > Regarding NVIDIA licensing, I'm not sure what the standard practice > is given that we are indeed open sourcing our GPU source code with ALv2 > and the NVIDIA licensing only comes into picture in binary distribution > and not in a source release. Advice is appreciated.> > > > > You need to tell your users that using the software in this way that > it is not compatible with the Apache license. I think the DISCLAIMER > would be a good place to do this.> > > > > Thanks,> > > Justin> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
