On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see missing > licenses? > > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI would > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell > what has been included or not :-) > Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control. ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to me. Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak. > > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make the > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think > > this is a blocker for this release? > > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently. > <general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get worse. Hen
