Seems the conclusion so far is only release source through apache and release the binary builds as third party(as a different community, a company or individual)
TQ On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 7:39 PM Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid> wrote: > They actually statically link some libraries such as libcudnn. But even > removing > that won't necessarily help. Compiling with nvcc and including cuda headers > during compilation incorporates parts of the Cuda SDK into libmxnet.so, and > makes it per the formulation of Cuda EULA subject to certain > ASF-incompatible > limitations. > > For more background on licensing of binaries, you can check the FAQ of GCC > [1]: > > > [...] if these libraries were simply distributed only under the terms of > the > > GPL, all the object code that GCC produces would have to be distributed > under > > the same terms. [...] Therefore, these libraries have always had license > > exceptions that allow people to distribute the object code GCC produces > under > > any license. > > Maybe NVidia is willing to grant a similar exception, so that libmxnet.so > can > remain Apache Licensed even containing code compiled with nvcc, but > currently > there's no such exception. > > Best regards > Leonard > > [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html > > > On Fri, 2020-05-08 at 22:48 -0700, Chris Olivier wrote: > > do the gpu builds actually include the nvidia cuda libraries such as > > libcudart.so or just link to them and expect them to be on the machine? > > > > > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:50 PM Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > repository.apache.org is an official Apache Software Foundation > release > > > channel > > > and the MXNet project has been publishing convenience binaries via that > > > channel > > > since quite a while. Unfortunately it appears that no-one has > initiated a > > > license review of these convenience binaries, and unfortunately they > are > > > incompatible with the ASF requirements. They should have never been > > > uploaded. > > > > > > I recently reached out to Legal to inquire about this issue [1] and > Legal > > > team > > > recommends to remedy the situation ASAP. > > > > > > Two issues, out of the potentially larger set of all issues. > > > > > > 1) There are GPU builds (mxnet-full_2.11-linux-x86_64-gpu) > incorporating > > > the > > > CUDA SDK and possibly cuDNN, placing the resulting libmxnet.so under > the > > > CUDA > > > EULA and cuDNN SLA. This EULA and SLA contain many restrictions, making > > > them > > > Category-X licenses [1]. No Apache project must under any circumstance > > > redistribute such binaries. > > > > > > 2) All builds redistribute libgfortran.so, which is part of the GNU > Fortran > > > compiler, part of GCC and subject to the GPL. The GPL is also a > Category-X > > > license and the same restrictions apply. > > > > > > I see the following two potential remedies: > > > > > > 1) Ask the Infra team to delete all MXNet releases on > > > repository.apache.org > > > > > > 2) Ask the Infra team to delete all MXNet GPU releases on > > > repository.apache.org > > > and provide replacement releases without libgfortran.so and other > > > potentially > > > Category-X files (I found libmkl_ml.so in one of the JARs..) > > > > > > If no-one steps up to do 2) or no-one suggests a better option, I > > > recommend we > > > go for option 1). Let's start discussing the options. Once discussion > has > > > settled, I'll initiate a lazy consensus or vote session. > > > > > > Note that these license rules apply to MXNet as part of the ASF. > > > Third-parties > > > (individuals or companies) may redistribute binary builds of MXNet > > > incorporating > > > Category-X licenses, IF they are appropriately labeled and no ASF > > > trademarks or > > > branding is infringed. > > > > > > As for the GPU builds, NVidia or Amazon may be willing to provide > > > third-party > > > GPU builds. I opened another ticket with Jira to see if such > third-parties > > > could > > > provide them and what considerations would need to be taken into > account. > > > [3] > > > This is similar to the Pypi releases, are third-party releases and not > > > performed > > > by the MXNet project (though also for them some legal questions remain > > > open; in > > > particular our Website does not disclaim that these are third-party > > > releases). > > > > > > Best regards > > > Leonard > > > > > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-516 > > > [2]: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > > [3]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-515 > > > >
