Hi,
Thanks for bringing this up. We are doing a thorough review of the licenses for
all files in the source [1] and will finish that first before rc2.
Best,
Sheng
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/19427
On 2020/10/21 22:23:20, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Re the
HI,
> Thanks, Justin. After removing stale issues and adding the statement on GPU
> license, assuming we address any other license issue in the next rc, should
> we name it as simply DISCLAIMER instead of DISCLAIMER-WIP?
When all issue have been resolved then I would name it DISCLAIMER,
Thanks, Justin. After removing stale issues and adding the statement on GPU
license, assuming we address any other license issue in the next rc, should we
name it as simply DISCLAIMER instead of DISCLAIMER-WIP? I thought it should be
the case and just want to confirm.
Best,
Sheng
On
Hi Justin,
I reviewed the open items in INCUBATOR-253 and didn't find issue that impacts
source code release. Let me know if you feel differently on any of those items.
Best,
Sheng
On 2020/10/21 22:38:50, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
> Is there anything from the known issues in [1] that
Hi,
> Let’s discuss outside the immediate context of MxNet reasons for the IPMC to
> suspend a podling.
Sure, it would be best to start a seperate thread for that. I think however it
would be so infrequent and each situation different that it would be hard to
come up with some that would work
Sure.
We still need to define suspension.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:15 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> If NVIDIA changes the license then it must be very soon. If so then the
>> issue is gone.
>
> And the issue may not be gone unless the license
Hi,
> If NVIDIA changes the license then it must be very soon. If so then the issue
> is gone.
And the issue may not be gone unless the license change is retroactive.
Currently the project has maven artefacts in the Apache repo that contain
category X code. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1.
Hi -
Let’s discuss outside the immediate context of MxNet reasons for the IPMC to
suspend a podling.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 8:57 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> HI,
>
>> Don’t make a noncompliant binary release.
>
> The project is (sadly) already doing this
HI,
> Don’t make a noncompliant binary release.
The project is (sadly) already doing this [1], they are hoping the licensing
issue can be sorted, but its taken more than 5 months and little visible
progress on that seems to have been done. NVIDIA is considering changing, but
to what we don’t
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 21, 2020, at 7:31 PM, Sheng Zha wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
> resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of
> them have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a
HI,
Is there anything from the known issues in [1] that needs to be added?
Justin
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional
Regarding the disclaimer issues, I have reviewed the 3 issues called out in the
disclaimer and found that they have all been resolved. Here is a PR [1] to
update the disclaimer and add the additional language describing the licensing
incompatibility when building for GPU with Nvidia licensed
Hi,
Re the licensed files missing from LICENSE here are some examples[1][2][3][4],
but I haven’t done a full check so there are probably more.
Thanks,
Justin
1.
./3rdparty/onnx-tensorrt/third_party/onnx/third_party/pybind11/tests/test_gil_scoped.cpp
2.
Hi,
I'm the author of one of the 3rd party libraries, intgemm, that is
new in 1.8. It is MIT licensed but also includes catch for testing
under Boost. MXNet doesn't compile my tests.
https://github.com/kpu/intgemm/blob/master/LICENSE
In
Hi,
> Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
> resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of
> them have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a blocking issue if the actual
> issues that the DISCLAIMER-WIP links to are addressed?
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the vote. It looks like we forgot to remove the mentions of the
resolved issues in the DISCLAIMER-WIP. Checking the linked issues, all of them
have been resolved in 1.8. Is this still a blocking issue if the actual issues
that the DISCLAIMER-WIP links to are addressed?
Hi,
-1 (binding) Please see [1] and note which sort of issues need to be fixed
before making a new release.
While it does include the WIP declaimers, it includes several knows issues that
have been outstanding for several releases. It also fails to mention teh issue
with Nvidia licensing and
+1 carrying my vote from dev.
On 2020/10/13 05:40:32, "Skalicky, Sam" wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.8.0, release
> candidate 1.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
>
Dear community,
This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.8.0, release
candidate 1.
Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
Vote thread:
19 matches
Mail list logo