anks,
> -Ciyong
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leonard Lausen
> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:06 AM
> To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code
> [WAS]
> Re: [MENTORS] PP
Hi,
> the consensus passed, so we should proceed according to the consensus.
It’s unclear to me what you think of as consensus here, can you care to specify
what the project is going to do?
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
cubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS]
> Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-
> party work guidance
>
> Thank you everyone for your valuable advice.
>
> &
Leonard Lausen
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:06 AM
To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re:
[MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party
work guidance
Thank
HI,
> In addition, Justin stated that converting the code from one program language
> to another one should **NOT** be considered as a major modification.
INAL but my understanding is that translation from one language to another is
considered a fairly trivial task and may not be novel enough f
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re:
[MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party
work guidance
Hi,
I should be more clear. The 2 options in the case below is
1) Numpy License Headers Only
2) Apa
Thank you everyone for your valuable advice.
> so if you did want to avoid including the license in your
> releases you would either need to rely on the file as an external
> dependency or completely reimplement the functionality not deriving it from
> this file.
Including the BSD-3 style license
Hi,
I should be more clear. The 2 options in the case below is
1) Numpy License Headers Only
2) Apache Header with Numpy License Header
Re-reading my original reply does sound like I'm saying the Numpy
license should be removed in the case for the Apache License Headers
from the file. This wa
For clarity the "additional license" in this case is the Apache License
Header that a contributor added above the numpy license. I agree that
the original license should remain if the file is considered derived in
anyway. The podling was asking if they had authority to make the change
to remove t
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Bob Paulin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree there does not appear to be consensus on when it's appropriate to
> add Apache License Headers to Third Party code across projects. Here is
> Justin's email that request the Apache Headers removed [1]
>
>
>
> - file copyright
HI,
> * If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin
> Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how MXNet’s
> source file evolves when the origin Numpy files changes?
IMO only if there are significant changes to the file, if in doubt I’d keep the
o
Hi Bob, Leonard,
Thanks for the elaboration/guideline on the dual license issue.
May I have the conclusion as below based on Bob’s direction/suggestion:
* If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin
Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how MX
12 matches
Mail list logo
