Marco, Thanks a lot for looking through this ! Some comments below - 1. *R-package:* Before we create the final tarball for the release, the R-package is explicitly removed from the cloned MXNet repo. The only info I have in this regard is that “there are some unresolved licensing issues in this package and cannot be released”. 2. *Dockerfiles:* You can refer to this PR for details https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9500. I plan to handle this differently next time. 3. *perl-package*: There were some copyright issues in the past with this folder. I just excluded it to be on the safer side, but I think it should be ok to add the ASF header here. 4. *docs/** - Yes, agreed. I will add the licenses where needed but I still think its safer to exclude the folder as a whole from the RAT check. 5. *CODEOWNERS* - agreed, will add to the list of excluded files. 6. *appveyor.yml:* Is this file relevant anymore? I will add a license anyway. 7. *tests/ci_build/pylintrc:* ok 8. *example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc <http://classification-predict.cc/>* - yes, mutiple opinions on this one during the voting process too. 9. *gradle-wrapper *- yes, I remember that one too. I am hoping for some suggestion on how this can be handled without breaking anything.
Best, Meghna On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > >
