Hello Sergio, This is how the NOTICE file looks at the moment - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE
I had worked on the NOTICE file prior to the 0.11.0 Release and had followed the link you mentioned. I had added a few notices into this file, including Caffe, MS coco etc but there were comments during the general voting process for 0.11.0 to remove these. These comments are tracked in this Github issue - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7748. According to me the NOTICE file is ok, but do you think you could help us review it ? Thanks, Meghna Baijal On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
