Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects: * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD licensed dependency. * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a vote for a RC2. On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > >
