Hi, >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18] >> [19] and many others >> > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/ > directory.
Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot easier to review. > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't > need to name them. In general all bundled software need to be added. [1] > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file. Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in LICENSE so it seemed odd to omit it. Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of help. Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
