Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Thank you Justin for your inputs and explanation ! I really appreciate your
> efforts to evaluate the release. I will extend the vote till Monday 12:00
> PM PDT (if its permitted) to see what other IPMC members have to say about
> category b content in the release.

Votes last for a minimum of 72 hours there's no real need to set a deadline.

Thanks,
Justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Thank you Justin for your inputs and explanation ! I really appreciate your
efforts to evaluate the release. I will extend the vote till Monday 12:00
PM PDT (if its permitted) to see what other IPMC members have to say about
category b content in the release.

Anirudh

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I think we should be good to add the header for Apache v2.0 license:
> >> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
> >> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
> >> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
> >> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
> >> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h
> >
> > Please confirm.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > For the docs directory, we did something similar to what other popular
> > Apache projects like spark did:
> > https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/docs. (adding docs
> directory to
> > rat-excludes)
>
> Just because a TLP does something doesn't mean it’s right, the Spark
> NOTICE file for instance is a right mess. ASF policy is clear on what
> should be done if you include docs in a release. [1]
>
> > At this point I want to ask you what your blocking concerns are.
> > Is it only the CC-BY-2.5 license for DevGuide.md in googletest submodule
> or
> > is it also the missing headers for contrib and the broad rat excludes ?
>
> My -1 vote is not a blocker to the release as I said before if you get 3
> +1 votes and more +1 than -1 you can release if you want to.
>
> IMO (and others may have differing opinions) the missing headers can be
> fixed in a later release. The main issue is inclusion of Category B content
> in a non binary form in the release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I think we should be good to add the header for Apache v2.0 license:
>> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
>> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
>> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
>> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
>> src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h
> 
> Please confirm.

Sounds good to me.

> For the docs directory, we did something similar to what other popular
> Apache projects like spark did:
> https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/docs. (adding docs directory to
> rat-excludes)

Just because a TLP does something doesn't mean it’s right, the Spark NOTICE 
file for instance is a right mess. ASF policy is clear on what should be done 
if you include docs in a release. [1]

> At this point I want to ask you what your blocking concerns are.
> Is it only the CC-BY-2.5 license for DevGuide.md in googletest submodule or
> is it also the missing headers for contrib and the broad rat excludes ?

My -1 vote is not a blocker to the release as I said before if you get 3 +1 
votes and more +1 than -1 you can release if you want to.

IMO (and others may have differing opinions) the missing headers can be fixed 
in a later release. The main issue is inclusion of Category B content in a non 
binary form in the release.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

Thank you! They were first added as part of this PR:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/5834. As you can see there
is a LICENSE in src/operator/contrib/ctc_include which is Apache v2.0
license. I am assuming that the intention was to keep the license of files
in the directory or subdirectory the same. I think we should be good to add
the header for Apache v2.0 license:
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h

Please confirm.

For the docs directory, we did something similar to what other popular
Apache projects like spark did:
https://github.com/apache/spark/tree/master/docs. (adding docs directory to
rat-excludes)

At this point I want to ask you what your blocking concerns are.
Is it only the CC-BY-2.5 license for DevGuide.md in googletest submodule or
is it also the missing headers for contrib and the broad rat excludes ?

Anirudh




On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In contrib/, I found a few files which don't have a license or have a
> > license but not the full text:
> >  src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h
> >  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
> >  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
> >  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
> >  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
> >  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h
>
> Well they do have a license it’s just unclear what it is as they have no
> header. Do you know where those files came from and how they were licensed?
>
> > In docs/ directory, the files that don't have a license are the .md,
> .html,
> > .js , .css, .svg.
> > I am assuming that these files don't need a license and thus we are good
> to
> > put them in rat excludes file.
>
> .js files are code and as such should have a header either [1] or [2]. The
> html files should have a header also [4]. There’s only a few exception for
> file not having headers [3]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
> 3. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> 4. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-siteindocs
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> In contrib/, I found a few files which don't have a license or have a
> license but not the full text:
>  src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
>  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h

Well they do have a license it’s just unclear what it is as they have no 
header. Do you know where those files came from and how they were licensed?

> In docs/ directory, the files that don't have a license are the .md, .html,
> .js , .css, .svg.
> I am assuming that these files don't need a license and thus we are good to
> put them in rat excludes file.

.js files are code and as such should have a header either [1] or [2]. The html 
files should have a header also [4]. There’s only a few exception for file not 
having headers [3]

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
3. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
4. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-siteindocs
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
> repo, since it is a submodule.

Just remove the file as part of the build script?

> I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
> https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
> Is this acceptable for the release?

If you get 3 +1 votes and more +1 than -1 then it’s a release. IMO I wouldn’t 
release software with Category X licensed stuff in it but that’s just me :-)

> For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs enough
> or do we need to add a warning for Creative commons license when script is 
> launched ?

I think warning the user would be a good idea but it’s not a reason to vote -1 
on a RC.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

I looked at the big directories that were omitted in the RAT excludes file:
contrib/* and docs/*.
In contrib/, I found a few files which don't have a license or have a
license but not the full text:
  src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/cpu_ctc.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/ctc_helper.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/gpu_ctc_kernels.h
  src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/detail/hostdevice.h

Can you please let me know what are the guidelines for contrib directory.
Do all source files in the contrib
directory have to mandatorily have a license ?

In docs/ directory, the files that don't have a license are the .md, .html,
.js , .css, .svg.
I am assuming that these files don't need a license and thus we are good to
put them in rat excludes file.
Please let me know if my assumption is wrong.

The explanation for other items in rat excludes is available in the doc
maintained by Meghna:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses

Anirudh



On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi Hen,
>
> Sorry I misunderstood. The doc can definitely be removed from release when
> doing tar.gz build.
> I for some reason was thinking about the release tag on github.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Hen  wrote:
>
>> I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build
>> script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file?
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh  wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Justin,
>> >
>> > We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
>> > repo, since it is a submodule.
>> > I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
>> > https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
>> > Is this acceptable for the release?
>> >
>> > For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs
>> enough
>> > or do we need to add a
>> > warning for Creative commons license when script is launched ?
>> >
>> > Anirudh
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Justin Mclean 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi,
>> > > My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the
>> > code
>> > > under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include
>> > the
>> > > documentation.
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Justin
>> > >
>> > > On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh,  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean <
>> > jus...@classsoftware.com
>> > > >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi,
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files
>> > > aren't
>> > > > > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls
>> > some
>> > > > > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking
>> issues ?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they
>> are
>> > > > > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The information regarding the license is currently added both to the
>> > > README
>> > > > of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
>> > > > Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during
>> > download
>> > > of
>> > > > these datasets?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any
>> > > other
>> > > > > > suggestions you have related to this.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The link (
>> > > >
>> > > > https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/
>> > ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c0243
>> > > 3cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
>> > > > )
>> > > > states the following at the bottom :
>> > > >
>> > > > "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
>> > > >  guide from
>> > the
>> > > > Google
>> > > > Web Toolkit  project. Except as
>> > > > otherwise noted > >,
>> > the
>> > > > content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons
>> Attribution
>> > > 2.5
>> > > > License ."
>> > > >
>> > > > At the top it states the following ::
>> > > >
>> > > > "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under
>> the
>> > New
>> > > > BSD License ."
>> > > >
>> > > > Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does
>> this
>> > > mean
>> > > > that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
>> > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > Justin
>> > > > > 
>> > -
>> > > 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Hen,

Sorry I misunderstood. The doc can definitely be removed from release when
doing tar.gz build.
I for some reason was thinking about the release tag on github.

Anirudh

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Hen  wrote:

> I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build
> script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file?
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh  wrote:
>
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
> > repo, since it is a submodule.
> > I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
> > https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
> > Is this acceptable for the release?
> >
> > For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs enough
> > or do we need to add a
> > warning for Creative commons license when script is launched ?
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the
> > code
> > > under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include
> > the
> > > documentation.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh,  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files
> > > aren't
> > > > > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls
> > some
> > > > > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues
> ?
> > > > >
> > > > > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they
> are
> > > > > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The information regarding the license is currently added both to the
> > > README
> > > > of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
> > > > Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during
> > download
> > > of
> > > > these datasets?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any
> > > other
> > > > > > suggestions you have related to this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The link (
> > > >
> > > > https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/
> > ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c0243
> > > 3cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
> > > > )
> > > > states the following at the bottom :
> > > >
> > > > "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
> > > >  guide from
> > the
> > > > Google
> > > > Web Toolkit  project. Except as
> > > > otherwise noted ,
> > the
> > > > content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons
> Attribution
> > > 2.5
> > > > License ."
> > > >
> > > > At the top it states the following ::
> > > >
> > > > "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the
> > New
> > > > BSD License ."
> > > >
> > > > Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does this
> > > mean
> > > > that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > > 
> > -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Hen]

I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build
script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file?

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
> repo, since it is a submodule.
> I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
> https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
> Is this acceptable for the release?
>
> For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs enough
> or do we need to add a
> warning for Creative commons license when script is launched ?
>
> Anirudh
>
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the
> code
> > under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include
> the
> > documentation.
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh,  wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean <
> jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files
> > aren't
> > > > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls
> some
> > > > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?
> > > >
> > > > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are
> > > > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
> > > >
> > >
> > > The information regarding the license is currently added both to the
> > README
> > > of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
> > > Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during
> download
> > of
> > > these datasets?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any
> > other
> > > > > suggestions you have related to this.
> > > >
> > > > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The link (
> > >
> > > https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/
> ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c0243
> > 3cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
> > > )
> > > states the following at the bottom :
> > >
> > > "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
> > >  guide from
> the
> > > Google
> > > Web Toolkit  project. Except as
> > > otherwise noted ,
> the
> > > content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
> > 2.5
> > > License ."
> > >
> > > At the top it states the following ::
> > >
> > > "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the
> New
> > > BSD License ."
> > >
> > > Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does this
> > mean
> > > that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > > 
> -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original
repo, since it is a submodule.
I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed:
https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604
Is this acceptable for the release?

For issue 1 and 2, is the information being in README and API docs enough
or do we need to add a
warning for Creative commons license when script is launched ?

Anirudh


On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
> My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the code
> under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include the
> documentation.
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh,  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files
> aren't
> > > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some
> > > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?
> > >
> > > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are
> > > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
> > >
> >
> > The information regarding the license is currently added both to the
> README
> > of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
> > Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during download
> of
> > these datasets?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any
> other
> > > > suggestions you have related to this.
> > >
> > > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
> > >
> >
> > The link (
> >
> > https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c0243
> 3cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
> > )
> > states the following at the bottom :
> >
> > "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
> >  guide from the
> > Google
> > Web Toolkit  project. Except as
> > otherwise noted , the
> > content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
> 2.5
> > License ."
> >
> > At the top it states the following ::
> >
> > "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the New
> > BSD License ."
> >
> > Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does this
> mean
> > that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,
My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the code
under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include the
documentation.
Thanks,
Justin

On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh,  wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't
> > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some
> > > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?
> >
> > No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are
> > downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
> >
>
> The information regarding the license is currently added both to the README
> of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
> Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during download of
> these datasets?
>
>
> >
> > > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any other
> > > suggestions you have related to this.
> >
> > Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
> >
>
> The link (
>
> https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c02433cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
> )
> states the following at the bottom :
>
> "This page is based on the Making GWT Better
>  guide from the
> Google
> Web Toolkit  project. Except as
> otherwise noted , the
> content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5
> License ."
>
> At the top it states the following ::
>
> "All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the New
> BSD License ."
>
> Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does this mean
> that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't
> > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some
> > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?
>
> No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are
> downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2
>

The information regarding the license is currently added both to the README
of the example for 1, and also on the docs for the API call for 2.
Are you suggesting that some kind of warning be provided during download of
these datasets?


>
> > For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any other
> > suggestions you have related to this.
>
> Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?
>

The link (
https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/ec44c6c1675c25b9827aacd08c02433cccde7780/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
)
states the following at the bottom :

"This page is based on the Making GWT Better
 guide from the Google
Web Toolkit  project. Except as
otherwise noted , the
content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5
License ."

At the top it states the following ::

"All Google Mock source and pre-built packages are provided under the New
BSD License ."

Since the CC-BY license states "except as otherwise noted", does this mean
that the CC-BY-2.5 license at the bottom is void ?

> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't
> part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some
> specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?

No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are 
downloading something that is not compatable with the ALv2

> For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any other
> suggestions you have related to this.

Ask the owner for it to be relicensed under another license?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Just to make sure I understand: Do you want us to review rat-excludes file
> to make sure we are not omitting important ? We will check the rat-excludes
> file.
> Also, the huge number of files(when run without rat-excludes) is because of
> the third party submodules for whom the licenses have been added to LICENSE.

I think it needs to be checked as I’m seeing files without headers outside of 
the third party code.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

I have a few questions on the category b issues that you raised:

1. example/nce-loss/README.md: This script doesn't ship with CC-BY-SA and
GFDL content by itself but downloads the dataset when user runs the script
example/nce-loss/get_text8.sh.

2. python/mxnet/gluon/contrib/data/text.py: Here the datasets WikiText2 and
WikiText103 with "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike" are also
downloaded when calling API: mxnet.gluon.contrib.data.text.WikiText2 and
mxnet.gluon.contrib.data.text.WikiText103. It also appears in the mxnet
docs here which will help make end users aware about it:
https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/api/python/gluon/contrib.html?highlight=wikitext2#mxnet.gluon.contrib.data.text.WikiText2

3. 3rdparty/googletest/googletest/docs/DevGuide.md: For this issue Meghna
raised this question on legal-discuss@
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201804.mbox/%3CCAMGgKDDEDkSo-dff_GxU19B7JKMpUz3w6bGTYDs3XbJzyKAOGg%40mail.gmail.com%3E

The problem is that this license is part of googletest submodule and thus
it is not easy for us to remove it without modifying the googletest repo
itself.
I have mentioned this issue in the known issues of the RELEASE.

For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't
part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some
specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ?
For 3, I have added it to known issues and I look forward to any other
suggestions you have related to this.

I would really appreciate any other advice or suggestions you have on how
to handle these issues.

Anirudh



On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> Just to make sure I understand: Do you want us to review rat-excludes file
> to make sure we are not omitting important ? We will check the rat-excludes
> file.
> Also, the huge number of files(when run without rat-excludes) is because
> of the third party submodules for whom the licenses have been added to
> LICENSE.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown
>> licenses.
>> > When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown
>> > licenses. Does the source you are looking at include build artifacts by
>> > chance ?
>>
>> No it wasn't but I was ignoring the rat exclusions. Perhaps they have
>> been set too wide wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

Just to make sure I understand: Do you want us to review rat-excludes file
to make sure we are not omitting important ? We will check the rat-excludes
file.
Also, the huge number of files(when run without rat-excludes) is because of
the third party submodules for whom the licenses have been added to LICENSE.

Anirudh

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown licenses.
> > When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown
> > licenses. Does the source you are looking at include build artifacts by
> > chance ?
>
> No it wasn't but I was ignoring the rat exclusions. Perhaps they have been
> set too wide wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown licenses.
> When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown
> licenses. Does the source you are looking at include build artifacts by
> chance ?

No it wasn't but I was ignoring the rat exclusions. Perhaps they have been set 
too wide wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Justin,

Thanks a lot for the feedback!

I will take a look at license issues and also publish my key to the public
keyserver.

I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown licenses.
When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown
licenses. Does the source you are looking at include build artifacts by
chance ?

Thanks,

Anirudh



On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry but it’s -1 binding as issues raised last incubator vote haven’t
> been fixed and the source release include Category B content. [2]
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - In LICENSE if you link to the license eg "For details, see,
> 3rdparty/googletest/googletest/LICENSE” there is no need to include the
> text of the license
> - NOTICE is fine
> - It’s still impossible to tell if files have correct headers or not as
> 3272 files have unknown licenses. Is this going to be fixed?
> - No unexpected binary files
>
> The source release contains Category B plain text content:
> search "creative commons"
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
> ./python/mxnet/gluon/contrib/data/text.py
> Examples in this folder utilize [text8](http://mattmahoney.
> net/dc/textdata.html) dataset, which is a 100MB of cleaned up English
> Wikipedia XML data. Wikipedia data is multi-licensed under the [Creative
> Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License](https://en.wikipedia.
> org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-
> ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License) (CC-BY-SA) and the [GNU Free
> Documentation License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_
> the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) (GFDL). For information on licensing
> of Wikipedia data please visit [here](https://en.wikipedia.
> org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download).
> ./example/nce-loss/README.md
> This page is based on the [Making GWT Better](http://code.google.
> com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html) guide from the [Google Web Toolkit](
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/) project.  Except as otherwise [noted](
> http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions), the content of this
> page is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License](
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
> ./3rdparty/googletest/googletest/docs/DevGuide.md
> This page is based on the [Making GWT Better](http://code.google.
> com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html) guide from the [Google Web Toolkit](
> http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/) project.  Except as otherwise [noted](
> http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions), the content of this
> page is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License](
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
> ./3rdparty/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md
>
> The policy for md5 hashes has change and if you have a sha you have no
> need for a md5. Please don’t publish the md5 hashes. [1]
>
> Would be good to publish your key as well:
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.2.0.rc2-
> incubating.tar.gz'
> gpg: Signature made Thu  3 May 05:09:24 2018 AEST
> gpg:using RSA key 38D5A10C8824C1C0
> gpg: requesting key 38D5A10C8824C1C0 from hkps server
> hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Sorry but it’s -1 binding as issues raised last incubator vote haven’t been 
fixed and the source release include Category B content. [2]

I checked:
- incubating in name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- In LICENSE if you link to the license eg "For details, see, 
3rdparty/googletest/googletest/LICENSE” there is no need to include the text of 
the license
- NOTICE is fine
- It’s still impossible to tell if files have correct headers or not as 3272 
files have unknown licenses. Is this going to be fixed?
- No unexpected binary files

The source release contains Category B plain text content:
search "creative commons"
License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
./python/mxnet/gluon/contrib/data/text.py
Examples in this folder utilize 
[text8](http://mattmahoney.net/dc/textdata.html) dataset, which is a 100MB of 
cleaned up English Wikipedia XML data. Wikipedia data is multi-licensed under 
the [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 
License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License)
 (CC-BY-SA) and the [GNU Free Documentation 
License](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License)
 (GFDL). For information on licensing of Wikipedia data please visit 
[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download).
./example/nce-loss/README.md
This page is based on the [Making GWT 
Better](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html) guide from the 
[Google Web Toolkit](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/) project.  Except as 
otherwise [noted](http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions), the 
content of this page is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
./3rdparty/googletest/googletest/docs/DevGuide.md
This page is based on the [Making GWT 
Better](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/makinggwtbetter.html) guide from the 
[Google Web Toolkit](http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/) project.  Except as 
otherwise [noted](http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions), the 
content of this page is licensed under the [Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 
License](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/).
./3rdparty/googletest/googlemock/docs/DevGuide.md

The policy for md5 hashes has change and if you have a sha you have no need for 
a md5. Please don’t publish the md5 hashes. [1]

Would be good to publish your key as well:
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.2.0.rc2-incubating.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Thu  3 May 05:09:24 2018 AEST
gpg:using RSA key 38D5A10C8824C1C0
gpg: requesting key 38D5A10C8824C1C0 from hkps server 
hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi Henri,

Thank you for your kind words! Really appreciate you and Sebastian checking
the release.

Anirudh

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:52 AM, Hen  wrote:

> +1.
>
> Reviewed diff between 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 source releases for anything unusual.
> Sampled new files in 1.2.0 for source headers.
> Happy to see the dmlc code folded into 3rd-party so it's clearer for
> users/reviewers.
>
> Good patient release-managering btw with all those side-issues on the vote
> thread regarding flaky tests/CI fails.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
> > candidate RC2.
> >
> > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ddc088a21aac179144350ea97353a7
> > ea885b2765ccb98db08a03ba2d@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > Results thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4c55ab75f6781e835d4b3e564904a4
> > 3680c760e619d741ce00c55962@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests etc. can be found at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.2.0.rc2/
> >
> > The release tag can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.2.0.rc2
> >
> > The release hash is 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d and can be
> > found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > 6E67 8509 715E 3B63 CDB2  234F F8F3 3A11 7CC1 8E95
> >
> > KEYS file available:
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
> >
> > 
> > For information on the contents of the release see:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> > Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.2.0+Release+Notes
> >
> > The vote will end at 10:30 AM on Friday, May 11th, PDT.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.2.0
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ]  -1 Do not release this package because ...
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Hen]

+1.

Reviewed diff between 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 source releases for anything unusual.
Sampled new files in 1.2.0 for source headers.
Happy to see the dmlc code folded into 3rd-party so it's clearer for
users/reviewers.

Good patient release-managering btw with all those side-issues on the vote
thread regarding flaky tests/CI fails.

Hen

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Anirudh  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
> candidate RC2.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ddc088a21aac179144350ea97353a7
> ea885b2765ccb98db08a03ba2d@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> Results thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4c55ab75f6781e835d4b3e564904a4
> 3680c760e619d741ce00c55962@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.2.0.rc2/
>
> The release tag can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.2.0.rc2
>
> The release hash is 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d and can be
> found here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> 6E67 8509 715E 3B63 CDB2  234F F8F3 3A11 7CC1 8E95
>
> KEYS file available:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>
> 
> For information on the contents of the release see:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.2.0+Release+Notes
>
> The vote will end at 10:30 AM on Friday, May 11th, PDT.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.2.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ]  -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> Anirudh
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Sebastian]

+1 (binding)

verified build from source on ubuntu 16.04

Best,
Sebastian

On 08.05.2018 19:36, Anirudh wrote:

Hi all,

This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
candidate RC2.

Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ddc088a21aac179144350ea97353a7ea885b2765ccb98db08a03ba2d@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

Results thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4c55ab75f6781e835d4b3e564904a43680c760e619d741ce00c55962@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.2.0.rc2/

The release tag can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.2.0.rc2

The release hash is 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d and can be
found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
6E67 8509 715E 3B63 CDB2  234F F8F3 3A11 7CC1 8E95

KEYS file available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS


For information on the contents of the release see:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.2.0+Release+Notes

The vote will end at 10:30 AM on Friday, May 11th, PDT.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.2.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ]  -1 Do not release this package because ...

Anirudh



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

[Anirudh]

Hi all,

This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0, release
candidate RC2.

Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ddc088a21aac179144350ea97353a7ea885b2765ccb98db08a03ba2d@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

Results thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4c55ab75f6781e835d4b3e564904a43680c760e619d741ce00c55962@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.2.0.rc2/

The release tag can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.2.0.rc2

The release hash is 60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d and can be
found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/60641ef1183bb4584c9356e84b6ca6d5fce58d6d

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
6E67 8509 715E 3B63 CDB2  234F F8F3 3A11 7CC1 8E95

KEYS file available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS


For information on the contents of the release see:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.2.0+Release+Notes

The vote will end at 10:30 AM on Friday, May 11th, PDT.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.2.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ]  -1 Do not release this package because ...

Anirudh