The last paragraph of the LICENSE looks suspect. I doubt we've taken code from the BSD project. I would suggest deleting that last paragraph.
With MIT and BSD licenses you do have to be careful that the text of each is the same. Each term is often used for a family of related licenses. Additionally each of MIT and BSD typically has a Copyright statement accompanying it. If the rules say to remove that from LICENSE, then we should be adding it to the NOTICE. Hen On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
