For clarity the "additional license" in this case is the Apache License Header that a contributor added above the numpy license. I agree that the original license should remain if the file is considered derived in anyway. The podling was asking if they had authority to make the change to remove the Apache License or if they needed to reach out to the original contributor to re-license the code. I believe they have that authority with or without the contributor's permission.
- Bob On 6/15/2020 7:39 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > HI, > >> * If there’s no any different opinion or objection, keep either origin >> Numpy license or ASF license but not dual, which depends on how MXNet’s >> source file evolves when the origin Numpy files changes? > IMO only if there are significant changes to the file, if in doubt I’d keep > the original license. > >> And the PPMC has all the authority to change the file like removing the >> additional license if needed. > I would say they don’t unless the 3rd party agrees or the overwhelming > majority of the code is no longer under the original license. > > Thanks, > Justin > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
