That makes sense. I equated "Unlicense" with the informal English usage of
"unlicensed" at first glance.
A possible improvement might be to use "Public domain (unlicense.org)"
instead of "Unlicense"
but perhaps others are more aware of that reference.
Cheers, Paul.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 7:34 AM
Thank you Paul for voting on the release.
On 2021/03/02 03:53:26, Paul King wrote:
> * LICENSE file mentions 3rdparty/tvm/3rdparty/rang as "Unlicense". It would
> be good to clarify that.
You can refer to line 207-211 in our LICENSE file, which state that the the
license of each subcomponent
Thanks for the vote & feedback Jason & Paul, we'll address these in the next
release.
Sam
On 2021/03/02 03:53:26, Paul King wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Checked:
> - LICENSE and NOTICE seem okay
> - DISCLAIMER-WIP exists
> - Incubating in name
> - Checksum and signature okay
> - No unexpected
+1 (binding)
Checked:
- LICENSE and NOTICE seem okay
- DISCLAIMER-WIP exists
- Incubating in name
- Checksum and signature okay
- No unexpected binary file
- Built shared library using cmake (without CUDA)
- Built Java/Scala jars (also works for Groovy)
Comments:
* As others have noted, please
+1 (binding); I checked:
- LICENSE and NOTICE exist
- DISCLAIMER-WIP exists
- Incubating in name
- Checksum correct
- No unexpected binary
Please fix LICENSE and DISCLAIMER-WIP.
Thanks,
-Jason
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:59 AM Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Sheng,
>
> The first place I
Hi Sheng,
The first place I would suggest you to ask is your mentors. Next, your PPMC
members who are IPMC members.
Hope this helps,
Craig
> On Feb 25, 2021, at 1:21 PM, Sheng Zha wrote:
>
> Bumping this thread up. Thanks to those who helped with the vote.
>
> So far, our 1.8 vote has
Bumping this thread up. Thanks to those who helped with the vote.
So far, our 1.8 vote has received 2 binding votes from general@, one
from Justin and one from our new mentor Furkan. Since this vote has
been open for a month, I wonder if there's any suggestion from people
on the list on how we
Hi,
+1 from me (binding).
I checked:
- Incubating in name
- DISCLAIMER-WIP exists
- LICENSE is fine
- NOTICE has incorrect year
- No unexpected binary files
- Checked PGP signatures
- Checked checksums
- Code compiles and tests successfully run
PS: DISCLAIMER-WIP/LICENSE should be fixed as
Hi Mentors,
Please help us get out this release by voting. Thanks for helping MXNet as it
grows in the incubator.
Thanks!
Sam
On 2021/02/01 18:52:24, Sam Skalicky wrote:
> Thanks Justin,
>
> We'll take note of these callouts and address them in the next release.
>
> Sam
>
> On 2021/01/28
Thanks Justin,
We'll take note of these callouts and address them in the next release.
Sam
On 2021/01/28 03:38:37, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding) but only because of WIP DISCLAIMER. LICENSE is not correct and
> source release contains Category B licensed bits.
>
> I checked:
>
Hi,
+1 (binding) but only because of WIP DISCLAIMER. LICENSE is not correct and
source release contains Category B licensed bits.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes are fine
- DISCLAIMER (WIP) exist but information has not been updated in it
- LICENSE looks OK but I’ve not
11 matches
Mail list logo
