Hi Sergio, Thanks for guidance.
The binary file has been removed now. See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end of today. Regards, Bhavin Thaker. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org> wrote: > Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects: > > * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD > licensed dependency. > * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html > * For all other licenses, either guess or ask. > > The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some > issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a > binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a > vote for a RC2. > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > Fair enough. > > > > > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the > MXNet > > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already > being > > > listed then that's a weak argument :) > > > > > > > Well, but it's a valid point. the more correct thing to do is not to > list > > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed > > unless listed specifically. > > > > > > > > > > Hen > > > > > >
