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 :) Hen
