Thanks Joe and Zhenghui and others who helped on the efforts in thoroughly addressing the license issues. Also thanks to @kezhenxu94 for sharing the great license checker tool from the skywalking community. I have a question from reviewing the LICENSE file from the master branch: - For the files under "Caffe Licensing Model", I checked the first file in that section and found the license to be under BSD-2 with Caffe's own copyright model. Since "Caffe Licensing Model" isn't listed in the Apache's license categories, should we call it "BSD-2 with Caffe Copyright Notice and Disclaimer" instead? - I saw that we still have several sections in LICENSE where they have dual licenses (e.g. files under "Apache-2.0 license + 3-clause BSD license" are adapted from ONNX and NumPy code). From the past votes we know we want to avoid them. What's preventing us from just using original licenses which are permissible? For the numpy files, they appear to be the first item in the checklist of this issue, and their content was updated. Why then are we still listing them in LICENSE under two licenses?
-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/20616#issuecomment-952478494
