[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17259164#comment-17259164 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 1/7/21, 3:57 AM: -- *Summary* Most of the issues from last update hinged on the resolution of LEGAL-516. We are very glad that LEGAL-516 concluded that ASF projects compiled using NVIDIA’s CUDA compiler may be distributed under the Apache License 2.0, which unblocks many of the distribution practices that are essential to the wide adoption of software that utilizes GPU. We would like to thank for the help, the patience, and the leniency and flexibility that the incubator and legal granted us, and the numerous helps we received along the way from the ASF members and our community members from NVIDIA. Especially, I would like to thank Michael O’Conner and Triston Cao from NVIDIA for pushing this through within their organization. Based on the conclusion of LEGAL-516, binary distribution of CUDA-compiled Apache projects can be properly licensed as ALv2. In addition, the branding issues from distribution pages from Amazon, NVIDIA, and Intel have all been acted on. As a result, among the 9 pending issues from last update, 5 can be resolved. We are following up on the remaining items to resolve all issues in INCUBATOR-253. As part of our improvement in brand management, we are including third-party brand usage review in our quarterly reports and we will keep it as part of our regular practice beyond graduation. *Status on open issues since last update:* 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending item 5) * Source code releases by the PPMC do not contain Category X code. Takedown and backfill of compliant binary releases by the PPMC on repository.apache.org is in progress, see item 5. PyPI releases are made by third-party. See item 8. 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * Takedown of binary releases on repository.apache.org initiated (i.e. INFRA-20442). Based on the resolution of LEGAL-516, the takedown (and backfill) includes those that include GPL licensed components. We are working on this in the infra issue. 6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code. (Resolved) * The third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines since the releases are from official source code releases and are properly licensed with ALv2. 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. (Resolved) * The third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines since the releases are from official source code releases and are properly licensed with ALv2. 9. Trademark and branding issues with PyPI and Docker releases. (Resolved) * These release are compliant with trademark and branding requirements since they don’t contain Category X licensed code and are licensed with ALv2 based on item 6 and 7. 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. (Resolved) * There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org releases in item 5. 14, 22, 23. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. Known pages with issues: * +[https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html+] (item 14, Resolved) NVIDIA switched to "NVIDIA Optimized Deep Learning Framework, powered by Apache MXNet” for naming. * +[https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B07YW8HVLD?qid=1595741035764=0-4_=srh_res_product_title+] (item 22, pending) PPMC reached out to Bitnami directly regarding this listing [1]. Bitnami responded but the page still needs update. We followed up again with Bitnami this week. * +[https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/search/results?x=0=0=%22MXNet+] (item 23, pending) PPMC reached out to AWS through internal channel to fix branding issue. Amazon intends to use AWS MX powered by Apache MXNet naming convention [2]. The naming change is in progress. * After last update, for item 15, SourceForge further added a disclaimer that the page is an automatic mirror of MXNet’s GitHub tags: +[https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/+]. In addition, MXNet PPMC identified several more listings that require correction according to the branding guideline on AWS marketplace that are related to AWS Deep Learning Container/DLAMI [3], and they have all been resolved. Reference links [1]: [https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1fabd3c081286b06b6e9c9283cb5986450f07d52309db3b74bfe3a24%40%3Cprivate.mxnet.apache.org%3E] [2] [https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rad72c3b39170da16e34e77536c0e3134f93ed429b07ddd643a6fa5ba%40%3Cprivate.mxnet.apache.org%3E] [3] [https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r3f95f5766e8f1ee8fbd8183720804afdc1678f0149f56144da45f619%40%3Cprivate.mxnet.apache.org%3E] was (Author: zhasheng): *Summary* Most of the issues from last
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17195126#comment-17195126 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 9/15/20, 9:35 PM: --- *Summary* The PPMC continues to make progress in resolving license and branding issues. During the a recent release vote on 1.7.0, with the help from Justin, a few more source distribution and branding issues were found. Here is the status on the issues, tracked in INCUBATOR-253. As of now, the PPMC resolved 15 issues, with 9 still left. Most of the outstanding issues hinge on one key outstanding question, which is whether the components in MXNet that are produced by CUDA NVCC constitutes Category X code. PPMC member employed by Nvidia helped connect Nvidia's representatives including Michael O'Connor, Director of Deep Learning, who have been supportive in the efforts of clarification. Progress is tracked in LEGAL-516. At the moment, NVIDIA's legal is actively exploring options on resolving this issue. Michael requested extension with MXNet PPMC to not treat the related component as Category-X and delay actions until Oct. board meeting. Also note that there was confusion around MXNet's status around integration with Intel products. In MXNet, there has never been public distribution of MXNet where MKL was included. There was an initial inquiry around whether MKL builds can be enabled but was rejected, so this never came into practice. Also, to my knowledge Intel has not produced custom MXNet builds with closed-source components. MXNet 1.7.0 release has completed. So far, PPMC members from Intel (Tao), Nvidia (Dick), and Amazon (Leonard, Henri, Qing, Sheng) have acted to help resolve the issues. *Status on open issues since last update:* 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * Source code releases by the PPMC do not contain Category X code, no issue. Takedown of binary releases by the PPMC on repository.apache.org is on hold, see item 5. PyPI releases are made by third-party. See item 8. 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * Takedown of binary releases on repository.apache.org initiated [1]. The scope depends on the resolution of LEGAL-516 [2]. 6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * There are no official PyPI releases. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * There are no official Docker releases. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 9. Trademark and branding issues with PyPI and Docker releases. (pending) * There are no official PyPI or Docker releases. In addition, as they all contain binary from unmodified MXNet code, whether they are compliant in branding now solely depends on whether they contain Category X licensed code. Refer to item 6, 7. 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. (pending) * There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org releases in item 5. 12. Releases and other nightly builds on [https://repo.mxnet.io|https://repo.mxnet.io/] / [https://dist.mxnet.io|https://dist.mxnet.io/] containing Category X licensed code (resolved) * Neither of the two site contains releases. The binaries are only intended for testing pipelines and are made available only to MXNet developers. As part of the effort to resolve branding concern, public references to these sites are deleted [4]. 14. to 23. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (pending) Known pages with issues: * [https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html] (item 14, pending) PPMC reached out to Nvidia. Pending action from Nvidia on branding compliance and replying on whether unreleased code was included. [https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/] (item 15, resolved) * PPMC reached out to SourceForge. SourceForge added (incubating) in name. As 1.7.0 release has completed, we removed release candidate tag from GitHub and the the mirror automatically deleted the it [3]. As such, the original issue is resolved. The PPMC will follow up with SourceForge on the functionality of filtering out non-release tags. AWS Marketplace related links [https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B07YW8HVLD?qid=1595741035764=0-4_=srh_res_product_title] (item 22, pending) * PPMC reached out to Bitnami directly regarding this listing [5]. Bitnami responded and is working on the branding issues. [https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/search/results?x=0=0=%22MXNet] (item 23, pending) * PPMC reached out to AWS through internal channel to fix branding issue. Will update in the next few
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17195126#comment-17195126 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 9/15/20, 9:34 PM: --- *Summary* The PPMC continues to make progress in resolving license and branding issues. During the a recent release vote on 1.7.0, with the help from Justin, a few more source distribution and branding issues were found. Here is the status on the issues, tracked in INCUBATOR-253. As of now, the PPMC resolved 15 issues, with 9 still left. Most of the outstanding issues hinge on one key outstanding question, which is whether the components in MXNet that are produced by CUDA NVCC constitutes Category X code. PPMC member employed by Nvidia helped connect Nvidia's representatives including Michael O'Connor, Director of Deep Learning, who have been supportive in the efforts of clarification. Progress is tracked in LEGAL-516. At the moment, NVIDIA's legal is actively exploring options on resolving this issue. Michael requested extension with MXNet PPMC to not treat the related component as Category-X and delay actions until Oct. board meeting. Also note that there was confusion around MXNet's status around integration with Intel products. In MXNet, there has never been public distribution of MXNet where MKL was included. There was an initial inquiry around whether MKL builds can be enabled but was rejected, so this never came into practice. Also, to my knowledge Intel has not produced custom MXNet builds with closed-source components. MXNet 1.7.0 release has completed. So far, PPMC members from Intel (Tao), Nvidia (Dick), and Amazon (Leonard, Henri, Qing, Sheng) have acted to help resolve the issues. *Status on open issues since last update:* 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * Source code releases by the PPMC do not contain Category X code, no issue. Takedown of binary releases by the PPMC on repository.apache.org is on hold, see item 5. PyPI releases are made by third-party. See item 8. 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * Takedown of binary releases on repository.apache.org initiated [1]. The scope depends on the resolution of LEGAL-516 [2]. 6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * There are no official PyPI releases. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) * There are no official Docker releases. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 9. Trademark and branding issues with PyPI and Docker releases. (pending) * There are no official PyPI or Docker releases. In addition, as they all contain binary from unmodified MXNet code, whether they are compliant in branding now solely depends on whether they contain Category X licensed code. Refer to item 6, 7. 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. (pending) * There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org releases in item 5. 12. Releases and other nightly builds on [https://repo.mxnet.io|https://repo.mxnet.io/] / [https://dist.mxnet.io|https://dist.mxnet.io/] containing Category X licensed code (resolved) * Neither of the two site contains releases. The binaries are only intended for testing pipelines and are made available only to MXNet developers. As part of the effort to resolve branding concern, public references to these sites are deleted [4]. 14. to 23. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (pending) Known pages with issues: * [https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html] (item 14, pending) PPMC reached out to Nvidia. Pending action from Nvidia on branding compliance and replying on whether unreleased code was included. [https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/] (item 15, resolved) * PPMC reached out to SourceForge. SourceForge added (incubating) in name. As 1.7.0 release has completed, we removed release candidate tag from GitHub and the the mirror automatically deleted the it [3]. As such, the original issue is resolved. The PPMC will follow up with SourceForge on the functionality of filtering out non-release tags. AWS Marketplace related links [https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B07YW8HVLD?qid=1595741035764=0-4_=srh_res_product_title] (item 22, pending) * PPMC reached out to Bitnami directly regarding this listing [5]. Pending reply. [https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/search/results?x=0=0=%22MXNet] (item 23, pending) * PPMC reached out to AWS through internal channel to fix branding issue. Will update in the next few days. In addition, MXNet PPMC identified
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17173724#comment-17173724 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 8/9/20, 2:09 AM: -- h3. Summary The PPMC continues to make progress in resolving license and branding issues. During the a recent release vote on 1.7.0, with the help from Justin, a few more source distribution and branding issues were found. Here is the status on the issues, tracked in INCUBATOR-253. As of now, the PPMC *resolved 12 issues, with 11 still left*. Most of the outstanding issues hinge on one key outstanding question, which is whether the components in MXNet that are produced by CUDA NVCC constitutes Category X code. PPMC member employed by Nvidia helped connect Nvidia's representatives including Michael O'Connor, Director of Deep Learning, who have been supportive in the efforts of clarification. Progress is tracked in LEGAL-516. Also note that there was confusion around MXNet's status around integration with Intel products. In MXNet, there has never been public distribution of MXNet where MKL was included. There was an initial inquiry around whether MKL builds can be enabled but was rejected, so this never came into practice. Also, to my knowledge Intel has not produced custom MXNet builds with closed-source components. MXNet 1.7.0 release vote was put on hold for addressing the branding issues in third-party releases and for an IP clearance process. So far, PPMC members from Intel (*Tao*), Nvidia (*Dick*), and Amazon (*Leonard*, *Henri*, *Qing*, *Sheng*) have acted to help resolve the issues. h3. Status 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) - Source code releases by the PPMC do not contain Category X code, no issue. - Takedown of binary releases by the PPMC on repository.apache.org is on hold, see item 5. - PyPI releases are made by third-party. See item 8. 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. (resolved) - Website contained links to nightly development builds which have been removed [5]; 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. (resolved) - Website contained links to third-party distributions. Disclaimers were added to the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their licenses. [5] 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non-(P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. (resolved) - Website contained links to third-party distributions. Disclaimers were added to the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their licenses. [5] 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) - Takedown of binary releases on repository.apache.org initiated [6]. The scope depends on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) - There are no PyPI releases by the PPMC. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. (pending) - There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. Whether the third-party releases are compliant with branding guidelines depend on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 8. Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. (resolved) - There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. The PPMC verified the third-party releases that all are based on unmodified commits in MXNet, which is approved from brand management [3]. 9. Trademark and branding issues with PyPI and Docker releases. (pending) - There are no PyPI or Docker releases by the PPMC. In addition, as they all contain binary from unmodified MXNet code, whether they are compliant in branding now solely depends on whether they contain Category X licensed code. Refer to item 6, 7, 8. 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. (pending) - There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org releases in item 5. 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable [https://repo.mxnet.io|https://repo.mxnet.io/] / [https://dist.mxnet.io|https://dist.mxnet.io/] (resolved) - Links to the nightly development builds were removed from the MXNet website and a robot.txt file was added to prevent indexing of the sites. These websites are removed from Google search index. 12. Releases and other nightly builds on [https://repo.mxnet.io|https://repo.mxnet.io/] / [https://dist.mxnet.io|https://dist.mxnet.io/] containing Category X licensed code (pending) - Neither of the two site contains releases. Whether the binaries there contain Category X components depends on the resolution of LEGAL-516. 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is not. (resolved) -
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17173644#comment-17173644 ] Justin Mclean edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 8/8/20, 12:34 PM: --- That information doesn't belong there and as mentioned many times previously the board needs a short concise summary. You are also confusing ASF policy with licensing issues, and what 3rd parties ignore is not of relevance. I also see no mention of the Intel licensing issues. was (Author: jmclean): That information doesn't belong there and as mentioned many times previously the boards needs a short concise summary. You are also confusing ASF policy with licensing issues, what 3rd parties ignore is not of relevance. I also see no mention of the Intel licensing issues. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17165145#comment-17165145 ] Justin Mclean edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 7/26/20, 12:40 PM: It also seems that this code may have been released before the PPMC/IPMC vote is over see [1][2][3][4] There are also branding and trademark issue with this site [5] This is in addition to the issues previously noted with releases, branding and trademarks.[6] Thanks, Justin There seems to be more release, branding and trademark issues here: 15. https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/ 16. https://repo.gradle.org/gradle/simple/repo/ai/djl/mxnet/mxnet-native-mkl/1.7.0-b/ 17. https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/ai.djl.mxnet 18. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0=nd=mxnet=v=d=50_Search=Go 19. https://djl.ai was (Author: jmclean): It also seems that this code may have been released before the PPMC/IPMC vote is over see [1][2][3][4] There are also branding and trademark issue with this site [5] This is in addition to the issues previously noted with releases, branding and trademarks.[6] Thanks, Justin There seem to be more release, branding and trademark issues here: 15. https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/ 16. https://repo.gradle.org/gradle/simple/repo/ai/djl/mxnet/mxnet-native-mkl/1.7.0-b/ 17. https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/ai.djl.mxnet 18. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0=nd=mxnet=v=d=50_Search=Go 19. https://djl.ai > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17149872#comment-17149872
]
Leonard Lausen edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 7/2/20, 5:38 PM:
---
Please see the MXNet report to the incubator for an update on the 14 items:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/July2020#mxnet
EDIT as per Justin's recommendation
was (Author: lausen):
I'm including below an excerpt from the MXNet report to the Incubator:
{code:java}
Issues with releases and distributions
# Background
In May 2020 The MXNet PPMC has proactively initiated a ASF policy compliance
review [1] and a license review [2] with the Apache Legal team.
The license review uncovered that
- Building unmodified MXNet release source code with the optional NVidia GPU
support enabled results in a binary subject to restrictions of NVidia EULA.
- PPMC members and committers uploaded convenience releases to
repository.apache.org which contain Category-X components. Both GPL and
NVidia EULA components were found.
The policy review uncovered that:
- Prior ASF guidance to the PPMC (December 2018 legal review [3]) was incomplete
and did not include a reference to the "unwritten" rule that convenience
binary distributions created by third-parties using ASF Trademarks must not
include Category-X components. Based on this discovery, the Draft Downstream
Distribution Branding Policy was updated in June 2020 to include the
"unwritten" requirement. Based on the updated guidance, PPMC discovered
various third-party trademark infringements.
The policy review did not yet conclude on the questions if
- The PPMC may create nightly development builds (audience restricted to dev
list subscribers as per Release policy [4]) for the purpose of testing and
developing MXNet;
# List of issues and their status
Justin classified the issues into 14 items.
1) Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code.
See summary from license review in Background section. Source code releases do
not contain Category X code; Takedown of binary releases on
repository.apache.org is pending on Apache Infra. (Trademark infringements of
3rd-parties such as on pypi are discussed separately)
2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code.
Website contained links to nightly development builds which have been removed
[5];
Going forward the PPMC intends to begin periodical voting on Alpha and Beta
Releases which will then be linked from the website.
3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code.
Website contained links to third-party distributions incorporating Category-X
components (see summary from license review above). Disclaimers were added to
the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their
licenses. [5]
4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non
(P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases.
Website contained links to third-party distributions incorporating Category-X
components (see summary from license review above). Disclaimers were added to
the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their
licenses. [5]
5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code.
See summary from license review in Background section. Source code releases do
not contain Category X code; Takedown of binary releases on
repository.apache.org is pending on Apache Infra. [6] (Trademark infringements
of
3rd-parties are discussed separately)
6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code.
There are no PiPy releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code.
There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
8. Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code.
There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. The existence of third-party releases
containing unreleased code was approved in [3] and is also in line with the
current Downstream Distribution Branding Draft Policy. ("using any particular
revision from the development branch is OK" [3])
9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases.
There are no PiPy releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases.
There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org
releases discussed above, which are being removed.
Please refer to the trademark infringement section of
the report.
11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable
https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io
Links to the nightly development builds were removed from the MXNet website and
a robot.txt file was added to prevent
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17149872#comment-17149872
]
Leonard Lausen edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 7/2/20, 5:08 AM:
---
I'm including below an excerpt from the MXNet report to the Incubator:
{code:java}
Issues with releases and distributions
# Background
In May 2020 The MXNet PPMC has proactively initiated a ASF policy compliance
review [1] and a license review [2] with the Apache Legal team.
The license review uncovered that
- Building unmodified MXNet release source code with the optional NVidia GPU
support enabled results in a binary subject to restrictions of NVidia EULA.
- PPMC members and committers uploaded convenience releases to
repository.apache.org which contain Category-X components. Both GPL and
NVidia EULA components were found.
The policy review uncovered that:
- Prior ASF guidance to the PPMC (December 2018 legal review [3]) was incomplete
and did not include a reference to the "unwritten" rule that convenience
binary distributions created by third-parties using ASF Trademarks must not
include Category-X components. Based on this discovery, the Draft Downstream
Distribution Branding Policy was updated in June 2020 to include the
"unwritten" requirement. Based on the updated guidance, PPMC discovered
various third-party trademark infringements.
The policy review did not yet conclude on the questions if
- The PPMC may create nightly development builds (audience restricted to dev
list subscribers as per Release policy [4]) for the purpose of testing and
developing MXNet;
# List of issues and their status
Justin classified the issues into 14 items.
1) Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code.
See summary from license review in Background section. Source code releases do
not contain Category X code; Takedown of binary releases on
repository.apache.org is pending on Apache Infra. (Trademark infringements of
3rd-parties such as on pypi are discussed separately)
2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code.
Website contained links to nightly development builds which have been removed
[5];
Going forward the PPMC intends to begin periodical voting on Alpha and Beta
Releases which will then be linked from the website.
3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code.
Website contained links to third-party distributions incorporating Category-X
components (see summary from license review above). Disclaimers were added to
the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their
licenses. [5]
4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non
(P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases.
Website contained links to third-party distributions incorporating Category-X
components (see summary from license review above). Disclaimers were added to
the website clarifying the third-party status of the releases and their
licenses. [5]
5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code.
See summary from license review in Background section. Source code releases do
not contain Category X code; Takedown of binary releases on
repository.apache.org is pending on Apache Infra. [6] (Trademark infringements
of
3rd-parties are discussed separately)
6. PyPI releases containing Category X licensed code.
There are no PiPy releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code.
There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
8. Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code.
There are no Docker releases by the PPMC. The existence of third-party releases
containing unreleased code was approved in [3] and is also in line with the
current Downstream Distribution Branding Draft Policy. ("using any particular
revision from the development branch is OK" [3])
9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases.
There are no PiPy releases by the PPMC. Please refer to the trademark
infringement section of the report.
10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases.
There are no binary releases by the PPMC besides the repository.apache.org
releases discussed above, which are being removed.
Please refer to the trademark infringement section of
the report.
11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable
https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io
Links to the nightly development builds were removed from the MXNet website and
a robot.txt file was added to prevent indexing of the sites. These websites are
removed from Google search index.
12. Releases and other nightly builds on
https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed
code.
Neither of
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17148199#comment-17148199 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/29/20, 11:28 PM: Justin, on what ground did you delete my comment? I believe anyone in Apache should be able to make any comments that are related to the topic as long as the conversation is civilized. So I find the deletion inappropriate and rude. Link to the related conversation on why the updates are organized the way I was providing it: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r0446adfbbed24b016338b2cfa6dcef90066b203162e464ae0088da08%40%3Cprivate.mxnet.apache.org%3E was (Author: zhasheng): Justin, why did you delete my comment? > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17144354#comment-17144354 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/24/20, 8:26 PM: --- > Justin: 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark > policies they need to comply with. In general they would also need to be > based on released code. > Sheng: I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that > the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as > long as the conditions are met. > Justin: The incubator has every right to ask podlings to comply with ASF > policy. ASF policy is on top of what the Apache License allows. Agreed on the last comment. This is truism and (I believe) not relevant here, given that we were talking about third-party releases. I included the full context above for your convenience. The responsibility of the PPMC in this case would be to make sure users of our project are sufficiently notified that these are not first-party releases and that they contain additional components that pose further restriction than what ALv2 license grants, and the third-party use complies with legal and trademark requirements. And we the PPMC fully intend to do so. As mentioned, we will propose the option we want to pursue in full observation of the Apache's policies and we can continue the discussion on how to do this properly. > The incubator also has the right to terminate a project if it doesn't comply >with policy. Please realize that if certain constraints affect the viability of our ecosystem, a threat to terminate carries little weight to us. Also, one difficulty we've been having is caused by individuals imposing their opinions as policies on us. Examples include draft release policies that haven't sufficiently considered podling's release needs or passed proper Apache processes. That said, we are still working hard to find a way to make MXNet viable in Apache incubator. In the unfortunate circumstances in which this is no longer possible, or that we have policy violations that the incubator can no longer tolerate to the extent that termination is warranted, let us know. At the core, the problem is that GPU acceleration, one of the two pillars of modern deep learning frameworks (w/ the other pillar being auto-differentiation) only receives the status of category-X optional features at Apache. As a result, MXNet has no choice but to seek ways to accommodate both the goal of protecting the freedom for the use of our software and the goal of having a useful deep learning framework. Thus, we test many unclear definitions in the scope of category-X optional features. We also do not expect the situation to change as new hardware accelerator vendors are unlikely to allow reverse engineering which is incompatible with ALv2. There have been several generations of popular deep learning frameworks and we realize now that it's no coincidence that none was in Apache before MXNet. As PPMC, we fully intend to uphold our responsibility of protecting our users from legal risks as part of Apache and we are learning our lessons for this. Keep in mind that we also have the responsibility to be a useful modern deep learning framework. We will not compromise one responsibility for the other. My hope is that the incubator is willing to work with us through rational discussion, and help guide us to our goal in the welcoming way of Apache. was (Author: zhasheng): > Justin: 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark > policies they need to comply with. In general they would also need to be > based on released code. > Sheng: I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that > the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as > long as the conditions are met. > Justin: The incubator has every right to ask podlings to comply with ASF > policy. ASF policy is on top of what the Apache License allows. Agreed on the last comment. This is truism and (I believe) not relevant here, given that we were talking about third-party releases. I included the full context above for your convenience. The responsibility of the PPMC in this case would be to make sure users of our project are sufficiently notified that these are not first-party releases and that they contain additional components that pose further restriction than what ALv2 license grants. And we the PPMC fully intend to do so. As mentioned, we will propose the option we want to pursue in full observation of the Apache's policies and we can continue the discussion on how to do this properly. > The incubator also has the right to terminate a project if it doesn't comply >with policy. Please realize that if certain constraints affect the viability of our ecosystem, a
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17142496#comment-17142496 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/23/20, 12:09 AM: > Anyone including PPMC members (with hat off) can build a third party artifact >but it needs to be clear to potential downloaders/users that said artifact is >a third party artifact. > 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark policies >they need to comply with. This makes sense. We plan to make a proposal on how our community will provide pre-built binary as third-party releases and review its adherence to the branding and trademark policies. > In general they would also need to be based on released code. I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as long as the conditions are met. > in short if it a channel controlled by the (P)PMC then it would not be >considered an 3rd party release. The definition of "control" is ambiguous. As long as the PPMC hat can be on or off at will, any declaration of "controlled by the (P)PMC" can be true and false at the same time. was (Author: zhasheng): > Anyone including PPMC members (with hat off) can build a third party artifact >but it needs to be clear to potential downloaders/users that said artifact is >a third party artifact. > 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark policies >they need to comply with. This makes sense. We plan to make a proposal on how our community will provide pre-built binary as third-party releases that adhere to the branding and trademark policies. > In general they would also need to be based on released code. I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as long as the conditions are met. > in short if it a channel controlled by the (P)PMC then it would not be >considered an 3rd party release. The definition of "control" is ambiguous. As long as the PPMC hat can be on or off at will, any declaration of "controlled by the (P)PMC" can be true and false at the same time. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17141307#comment-17141307 ] Justin Mclean edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/21/20, 8:11 AM: --- Re 1 there was discussion about Category X headers included in the source code. 2, 4, 13 are seperate issues. For the trade marks issue you cannot call a release "Apache MXNet" if it contains something from category X, but there are also separate trademark/branding issues with both the PiPy and Docker download pages. 7 and 8 are seperate issues. Re 12 a Google search shows these artefacts to users to download. I would be of the opinion that nightly builds (or in fact any build) created by the PPMC are NOT allowed to have category X licensed code. Re category X code in releases I also believe there was multiple category X issues including one with Intel and one with CUDA. The board or Incubator PMC is unlikely to search though GitHub issues to see what is being done, but they would look at your mailing list(s) for discussion about these items. I don't see any discussion about changing the CUDA license or what's involved there. Is this conversation taking place and if so where? It's up to PPMC to correct these issues. At some point the project needs to do this for itself and shows it understand ASF policy before it can graduate. So it would be great if the project can gp ahead and do this on it own and show it's making progress towards that goal. However if you need help please ask your mentors or if for some reason they can't help then bring it up here or on the general@ or relevant mailing list. was (Author: jmclean): Re 1 there was discussion about Category X headers included in the source code. 2, 4, 13 are seperate issues. For the trade marks issue you cannot call a release "Apache MXNet" if it contains something from category X, but there are also separate trademark issues with both the PiPy and Docker download pages. 7 and 8 are seperate issues. Re 12 a Google search shows these artefacts to users to download. I would be of the opinion that nightly builds (or in fact any build) created by the PPMC are NOT allowed to have category X licensed code. Re category X code in releases I also believe there was multiple category X issues including one with Intel and one with CUDA. The board or Incubator PMC is unlikely to search though GitHub issues to see what is being done, but they would look at your mailing list(s) for discussion about these items. I don't see any discussion about changing the CUDA license or what's involved there. Is this conversation taking place and if so where? It's up to PPMC to correct these issues. At some point the project needs to do this for itself and shows it understand ASF policy before it can graduate. So it would be great if the project can gp ahead and do this on it own and show it's making progress towards that goal. However if you need help please ask your mentors or if for some reason they can't help then bring it up here or on the general@ or relevant mailing list. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: >
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17141307#comment-17141307 ] Justin Mclean edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/21/20, 6:07 AM: --- Re 1 there was discussion about Category X headers included in the source code. 2, 4, 13 are seperate issues. For the trade marks issue you cannot call a release "Apache MXNet" if it contains something from category X, but there are also separate trademark issues with both the PiPy and Docker download pages. 7 and 8 are seperate issues. Re 12 a Google search shows these artefacts to users to download. I would be of the opinion that nightly builds (or in fact any build) created by the PPMC are NOT allowed to have category X licensed code. Re category X code in releases I also believe there was multiple category X issues including one with Intel and one with CUDA. The board or Incubator PMC is unlikely to search though GitHub issues to see what is being done, but they would look at your mailing list(s) for discussion about these items. I don't see any discussion about changing the CUDA license or what's involved there. Is this conversation taking place and if so where? It's up to PPMC to correct these issues. At some point the project needs to do this for itself and shows it understand ASF policy before it can graduate. So it would be great if the project can gp ahead and do this on it own and show it's making progress towards that goal. However if you need help please ask your mentors or if for some reason they can't help then bring it up here or on the general@ or relevant mailing list. was (Author: jmclean): Re 1 there was discussion about Category X headers included in the source code. 2, 4, 13 are seperate issues. For the trade marks issue you cannot call a release "Apache MXNet" if it contains something from category X, but there are also separate trademark issues with both the PiPy and Docker download pages. 7 and 8 are seperate issues. Re 12 a Google search shows these artefacts to users to download. I would be of the opinion that nightly builds (or in fact any build) created by the PPMC are NOT allowed to have category X licensed code. Re category X code in releases I also believe there was multiple category X issues including one with Intel and one with CUDA. The board or Incubator PMC is unlikely to search though GitHub issues to see what is being done, but they would look at your mailing list(s) for discussion about these items. I don't see any discussion about changing the CUDA license or what's involved there. Is this conversation taking place and if so where? It's up to PPMC to correct these issues. At some point the project needs to do this for itself and shows it understand ASF policy before it can graduate. So it would be great if the project can how ahead and do this on it own and show it's making progress towards that goal. However if you need help please ask your mentors or if for some reason they can't help then bring it up here or on the general@ or relevant mailing list. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17141273#comment-17141273 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/21/20, 3:18 AM: --- Yes, I'm aware and I am updating that issue to reflect them. Also, we obviously missed some issues and I want to make sure that this doesn't happen again, so it would be great if you could help link to the existing previous discussions on each of the issues you listed above so that we could conduct a retrospect. > It's been serval months now since the project has been aware of most of these > issues We just started realizing the issues as we recently initiate license reviews for binary release as part of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-515, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-516 both of which we initiated in May. Please don't make it sound as if it's intentional procrastination from us. With respect to visibility to the board, I assume they can access the GitHub issues. Alternatively, I can paste back a weekly update on the status here. was (Author: zhasheng): Yes, I'm aware and I am updating that issue to reflect them. Also, we obviously missed some issues and I want to make sure that this doesn't happen again, so it would be great if you could help link to the existing previous discussions on each of the issues you listed above so that we could conduct a retrospect. With respect to visibility to the board, I assume they can access the GitHub issues. Alternatively, I can paste back a weekly update on the status here. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
