First general disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Second Disclaimer with an engineer hat on we want to avoid copying third party code into the project since it increases the amount of maintenance in a sense from a code standpoint and from a licensing standpoint. If at all possible it is preferable to either link or try to find a way to integrate your tweaks back into the other projects before taking on the burden of housing the code in MXNet. I do hope these options were considered or are being looked at for refactoring in the project since it will help the long term viability of the project.
Now to your question. Similar situations have been discussed both on legal [1] and on incubator [2][3]. It may be useful to review some of these threads to understand how other projects made this determination. There are instances where other members have stated it is appropriate and the dual headers have been used [4]. It seems in some of these cases the PMC has reached out to the other projects to ask for permission to apply the Apache license. With respect to einsumfunc.py [5] vs np_einsum_op.cc [6] if this is in fact a port where the behavior was copied/derived directly from numpy I could see that as supporting Justin's case that the Apache header should be removed. However that is just my opinion. If the PMC feels strongly it would make sense to escalate to legal-discuss. These are case by case decisions and the more third party code that gets copied in the more drag there will be on the community to deal with these issues. I would also encourage discussion of each case to remain on list so that the incubator PMC can see how the PPMC is making these determinations. - Bob [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0fc4c0e95ee0c489553373e378125a0d163bc511da2555caa68bfa87%401455903168%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org%3E [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d00f72c4aa0b56927dac87b116e2e92fa32b7dcf447016726683cc4f@1455210877@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e743b1b1cfda2c4775c3fe509f3adc8f69d64fd2b6eb253ade311fe7%401451947855%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E [4] https://github.com/apache/trafodion/blob/master/core/sql/parser/ulexer.h [5] https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/einsumfunc.py [6] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_op.cc On 6/10/2020 5:29 PM, Leonard Lausen wrote: > Hi Bob, > > yes, your understanding is correct. To further give an example I'd like to > quote > Haozheng who added two of the files in question: > >> The two files originate from > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/einsumfunc.py . >> I translated them from python to cpp. The original files are subject to the >> the following license: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17329#issuecomment-640043814 > > Thank you > Leonard > > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 07:42 -0500, Bob Paulin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Let me restate to make sure I understand what's being asked. >> >> 1) There is third party code in the project that has Major Modifications to >> the original third party source. >> >> 2) The original third party code does not currently have two license headers >> >> (ex Third Party Code has MIT license only. Apache License header was added >> when it was checked into MXNet repo with modifications) >> >> 3) You are asking if the files can remain in the MXNet repository with both >> license headers. >> >> - Bob >> >> On 6/9/2020 5:07 PM, Leonard Lausen wrote: >>> Hi Mentors, >>> >>> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party states the 5 rules for >>> handling third-party code included in the project [1]. In particular PPMC >>> shall >>> handle major modifications on a case-by-case basis. >>> >>> But the other rules state >>> >>>> 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third- >>> party works. >>> >>> and >>> >>>> 2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party >>> source files. >>> >>> The major modifications in question [2] are currently licensed under Apache >>> License but the files originate from a third-party and there are thus two >>> license headers in the files. This is in conflict with rule 2. >>> >>> Could you clarify if rule 2 is not a rule but only a guideline that can be >>> overruled in PPMC's case-by-case decision? What's your recommendation? Ie. >>> can >>> we keep the 2 headers in place? >>> >>> Best regards >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> [1]: >>> >>>> 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted directly to >>>> the >>>> ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent. This includes parts of a work >>>> submitted directly to the ASF for which the submitter is not the copyright >>>> owner or owner's agent. >>>> 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within third- >>>> party works. >>>> 2. Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, >>>> even >>>> if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party >>>> download >>>> site into the distribution. >>>> 3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party >>>> source files. >>>> 4. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should >>>> typically >>>> be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest of the third- >>>> party >>>> source for convenience. >>>> 5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with on a >>>> case-by-case basis by the PMC. >>> [2]: >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17329#issuecomment-641311199 >>>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
