Hi Meghna, thank you for driving the licensing issues!
- R-package: In the linked wiki, you're mentioning that R-package is not a part of the release. Could you please elaborate? From my understand, all files in the GitHub repository are part of the release. - Dockerfiles: I just checked another Apache-project [1] and it seems like they are successfully applying the license to dockerfiles. Do you see any issues in doing so? - perl-package: Same as R-package - docs/*: Just my personal opinion, but I agree that it might not be a good idea to have the license inside every file as some of them are directly getting sent out. But we have some shell-scripts inside this directory, so they'll need proper licensing. - CODEOWNERS: This is a setting file got our GitHub repository and not part of the release or the software itself. Thus I'd say that there's no need for a license - especially considering that the content itself has no value. - appveyor.yml: I'd treat this like the Jenkinsfile and apply a license. - tests/ci_build/pylintrc: I'd add a license - example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc: It seems like Mu has had issues with the licensing of this file in the past. Maybe consult him - gradle-wrapper: I don't have a link, but I'm very sure that there was a discussion regarding this jar-file during the last release. Anybody, please feel free to correct me if I made a wrong assumption. Best regards, Marco [1]: https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/blob/master/docker/Dockerfile On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > This is an update on the current status of the license fixes (all details > in the wiki linked below)– > > 1. I am constantly updating this wiki, so you can check it at any time > to know the status - > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses > 2. All 7 PRs have been merged however if anyone has any comments on > these changes please let me know. > 3. There are still 6-7 files that do not have a license and are failing > the RAT check. These are files I was not entirely confident about > adding an > apache header to. > 4. There is a list of file formats, files and directories that have > currently been excluded from the RAT check. I have mentioned the exact > reason for adding these to this list in the wiki. However, this list > needs > to be reviewed and validated. > > > *Coming Up Later –* > > *1. *Once points 3 and 4 above have been fixed, I will set up a RAT job in > CI which will run a nightly check (This is currently being run in a local > Jenkins setup) > > 2. I will also add a rat-excludes file to the mxnet repo so that anyone can > run a RAT check locally to check the licenses. > > > I am still looking for the MXNet community and the Mentors to review the > open questions in the wiki and help me resolve these before the upcoming > release! > > > Thank you, > > Meghna Baijal > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:14 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > Hello All! > > > > I am currently attempting to fix the licensing issues in MXNet. These are > > being tracked in this wiki - > > > > *https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses > > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses > >* > > > > You can follow the links in this wiki to find the following details - > > 1. Links to relevant email threads which point the license issues out. > > 2. Links to Github Issues created based on these emails. > > 3. Apache pages which details the licensing policies. > > 4. *The PRs created to fix these issues.* (These need review and all help > > is welcome!) > > 5. A table to track the high level issues and their progress. > > 6. And a list of open *issues/questions/doubts/concerns* that need some > > answers. > > > > I would appreciate any comments/ feedback/ suggestions from the community > > regarding this work and it would be particularly helpful if you could > > help review and validate the PRs and other planned changes. > > > > This is still a work in progress and there are a few files/folders that > > are currently excluded from the Apache RAT checks. Also, there are around > > 30 files that are still failing Apache RAT check (both lists are in the > > wiki). If you know how to fix any of these remaining issues, please let > me > > know or even better create a PR! > > > > Do let me know if I can provide more details on any of the points. > > > > Thanks, > > Meghna Baijal > > >
