Thanks Leonard for the confirmation, I will update the related files based on
the consensus.
Regards,
-Ciyong
-Original Message-
From: Leonard Lausen
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 2:24 AM
To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When
Hi,
> the consensus passed, so we should proceed according to the consensus.
It’s unclear to me what you think of as consensus here, can you care to specify
what the project is going to do?
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Hi Ciyong,
the consensus passed, so we should proceed according to the consensus.
Thank you
Leonard
On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 09:04 +, Chen, Ciyong wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm wondering if there's any further concerns for this "72 hours lazy
> consensus"?
> Shall we continue with the option of "I
Hi all,
I'm wondering if there's any further concerns for this "72 hours lazy
consensus"?
Shall we continue with the option of "I believe PPMC would prefer to put the
ASF header on top of the file (ie. 2 headers)"
Thanks,
-Ciyong
-Original Message-
From: Leonard Lausen
Sent:
HI,
> In addition, Justin stated that converting the code from one program language
> to another one should **NOT** be considered as a major modification.
INAL but my understanding is that translation from one language to another is
considered a fairly trivial task and may not be novel enough
Thanks a lot for your valuable input Bob, John, Justin, Leonard.
As it’s still not finalized on how to handle such dual license issue from the
discussion.
In addition, Justin stated that converting the code from one program language
to another one should **NOT** be considered as a major
Thank you everyone for your valuable advice.
> so if you did want to avoid including the license in your
> releases you would either need to rely on the file as an external
> dependency or completely reimplement the functionality not deriving it from
> this file.
Including the BSD-3 style
Hi,
I should be more clear. The 2 options in the case below is
1) Numpy License Headers Only
2) Apache Header with Numpy License Header
Re-reading my original reply does sound like I'm saying the Numpy
license should be removed in the case for the Apache License Headers
from the file. This
For clarity the "additional license" in this case is the Apache License
Header that a contributor added above the numpy license. I agree that
the original license should remain if the file is considered derived in
anyway. The podling was asking if they had authority to make the change
to remove
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Bob Paulin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree there does not appear to be consensus on when it's appropriate to
> add Apache License Headers to Third Party code across projects. Here is
> Justin's email that request the Apache Headers removed [1]
>
>
>
> - file copyright
HI,
> * If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin
> Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how MXNet’s
> source file evolves when the origin Numpy files changes?
IMO only if there are significant changes to the file, if in doubt I’d keep the
Hi Bob, Leonard,
Thanks for the elaboration/guideline on the dual license issue.
May I have the conclusion as below based on Bob’s direction/suggestion:
* If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin
Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how
Hi,
I agree there does not appear to be consensus on when it's appropriate
to add Apache License Headers to Third Party code across projects. Here
is Justin's email that request the Apache Headers removed [1]
- file copyright NumPy Developers [6] this file look to incorrectly have an
ASF
13 matches
Mail list logo
