Hi all, I'm wondering if there's any further concerns for this "72 hours lazy consensus"? Shall we continue with the option of "I believe PPMC would prefer to put the ASF header on top of the file (ie. 2 headers)"
Thanks, -Ciyong -----Original Message----- From: Leonard Lausen <lau...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:06 AM To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance Thank you everyone for your valuable advice. > so if you did want to avoid including the license in your releases you > would either need to rely on the file as an external dependency or > completely reimplement the functionality not deriving it from this > file. Including the BSD-3 style license in releases wouldn't be a problem, as it's compatible with Apache License 2. As there are substantial changes, I believe PPMC would prefer to put the ASF header on top of the file (ie. 2 headers) [72 hours lazy consensus if there are no concerns]. We still need to declare all the numpy einsum derived files in the LICENSE and fix the inconsistency that ASF header was removed in src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_op-inl.h but remains in src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_path_op-inl.h Related: As PPMC strives to provide partial API compatibility with NumPy in MXNet 2 based on the NumPy Array Function Protocol [1], could you clarify if these MXNet operators should be considered derived from NumPy (thus warranting the BSD-3 style license headers) solely based on integrating with the NumPy API and providing compatible operators? Or only (as in the einsum case above), if the actual implementation was derived from NumPy's implementation. I believe it's the latter, but please clarify if that's wrong. Should ASF update the "Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of third-party source files." at [2]? This sentence was the motivation to open this discussion thread, and according to the current consensus here is "incomplete". How about adding an "unless the third-party source file contains major modifications by ASF" to clarify? Thank you Leonard [1]: https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0018-array-function-protocol.html [2]: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 09:36 -0400, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Bob Paulin <b...@bobpaulin.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I agree there does not appear to be consensus on when it's > > appropriate to add Apache License Headers to Third Party code across > > projects. Here is Justin's email that request the Apache Headers > > removed [1] > > > > <snip> > > > > - file copyright NumPy Developers [6] this file look to incorrectly > > have an ASF header on it .... > > 6. ./src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_path_op-inl.h > > </snip> > > > > We want to make the choice that will be most sustainable for the > > project and most correct for the situation. > > > > Based on the emails I linked in the prior email it does seem like > > the cases where dual headers are appropriate is when there are Major > > Modifications. In the case of > > > > np_einsum_path_op-inl.h > > > > The file is derived from the implementation in Numpy [2]. If the > > implementation in Numpy changes will this file change? If so then > > the community will be tasked with continuing to re-port the changes > > over that is always based on Numpy so it may be more appropriate to > > just keep the Numpy license. > > > > Will MXNet likely evolve this file in a way that it's no longer > > resembles the Numpy implementation (Major Modification)? If so it > > may be better to keep the Apache Header as going forward the file > > will represent the work of the MXNet community not that of Numpy. > > > > Keeping the (what appears to be) BSD-3 style license is perfectly fine > and is in fact what the NumPy license says to do. We would only > change the license from the NumPy license to ALv2 if an SGA or ICLA is > received from all contributors historically on this file. No matter > how drastic of modifications the MxNet community makes to it, it would > always be NumPy licensed; so if you did want to avoid including the > license in your releases you would either need to rely on the file as > an external dependency or completely reimplement the functionality not > deriving it from this file. Whether or not the MxNet community > imports upstream changes or not is up to them, but either way you have a > derived work here. > > John > > > > Hopefully the above helps clarify my perspective on how to determine > > case by case. I don't see the dual license state as the simpler > > case in all situations. I don't believe you would have to get the > > original committer to relicense the file to you in order to remove > > the additional license. I believe the PPMC has all the authority it > > needs to change the file. I'd be interested to hear if this is a > > position that the rest of the Mentors/Incubator agree with. I know > > Hen has been involved in some of the conversations in support of > > dual licenses. Has this ever required escalation to an actual > > Lawyer in Legal? Or have these determinations been low enough risk > > that we are comfortable with our PMC making best effort decisions based on > > the ASF guidelines? > > > > > > - Bob > > > > > > [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rb83ff64bdac464df2f0cf2fe8fb4c6 > > b9d3b8fa62b645763dc606045f%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > > > > [2] > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/einsumfunc.py > > On 6/12/2020 7:20 PM, Leonard Lausen wrote: > > > > Thank you Bob for the elaboration. PPMC would like to minimize > > complexity, that's why we ask for your recommendation. > > > > If it's easiest to just keep the original license header, we can do > > that. Do we need the contributor to re-license their contribution, > > or is the contribution already available under both licenses as both > > license headers were included by the contributor and the ASF header > > can simply be deleted? > > > > Reading through the threads you referenced, there does not seem to > > be a strong consensus in the ASF about how to handle this situation. > > For example, quoting Roman Shaposhnik [2] in support of just putting > > 2 License Headers for > > simplicity: > > > > > > Hm. This is tricky, now that I re-read the language of the ASF > > license header I'm not sure anymore. I *think* the language there > > should allow you to slap said header on a compatible license code. > > > > Besides, the alternative is much messier: every time somebody > > touches that file he/she needs to decide whether it is time for an > > ASF header or not. > > > > I *think* (but I'd love for old-timers to chime in and correct me) > > that #3-5 were written from though-shall-not-fork-communities perspective. > > > > Can we follow this approach (keep 2 License headers) for simplicity > > (assuming removal of ASF header will require extra steps)? > > > > > > With respect to einsumfunc.py [5] vs np_einsum_op.cc [6] if this is > > in fact a port where the behavior was copied/derived directly from > > numpy I could see that as supporting Justin's case that the Apache > > header should be removed. However that is just my opinion. > > > > Which email of Justin are you referring to? > > > > Best regards > > Leonard > > > > > > [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#purpose > > [2]: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ef46b1d0a3dd865d27a33c290430d89 > > 2d3373d4bc5e27b5f06c7bcda%401451951295%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache > > .org%3E > > > > > > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 21:39 -0500, Bob Paulin wrote: > > > > First general disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. > > > > Second Disclaimer with an engineer hat on we want to avoid copying > > third party code into the project since it increases the amount of > > maintenance in a sense from a code standpoint and from a licensing > > standpoint. If at all possible it is preferable to either link or > > try to find a way to integrate your tweaks back into the other > > projects before taking on the burden of housing the code in MXNet. > > I do hope these options were considered or are being looked at for > > refactoring in the project since it will help the long term viability of > > the project. > > > > Now to your question. Similar situations have been discussed both > > on legal [1] and on incubator [2][3]. It may be useful to review > > some of these threads to understand how other projects made this > > determination. > > There are instances where other members have stated it is > > appropriate and the dual headers have been used [4]. It seems in > > some of these cases the PMC has reached out to the other projects to > > ask for permission to apply the Apache license. > > > > With respect to einsumfunc.py [5] vs np_einsum_op.cc [6] if this is > > in fact a port where the behavior was copied/derived directly from > > numpy I could see that as supporting Justin's case that the Apache > > header should be removed. However that is just my opinion. If the PMC > > feels strongly > > it would make sense to escalate to legal-discuss. These are case by > > case decisions and the more third party code that gets copied in the > > more drag there will be on the community to deal with these issues. > > I would also encourage discussion of each case to remain on list so > > that the incubator PMC can see how the PPMC is making these determinations. > > > > - Bob > > > > [1] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0fc4c0e95ee0c489553373e378125a0 > > d163bc511da2555caa68bfa87%401455903168%40%3Clegal-discuss.apache.org > > %3E > > > > [2] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d00f72c4aa0b56927dac87b116e2e92 > > fa32b7dcf447016726683cc4f@1455210877@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org > > %3E > > > > [3] > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e743b1b1cfda2c4775c3fe509f3adc8 > > f69d64fd2b6eb253ade311fe7%401451947855%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache > > .org%3E > > > > [4] > > https://github.com/apache/trafodion/blob/master/core/sql/parser/ulex > > er.h > > > > [5] > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/einsumfunc.py > > > > [6] > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/src/operator/n > > umpy/np_einsum_op.cc > > > > > > On 6/10/2020 5:29 PM, Leonard Lausen wrote: > > > > Hi Bob, > > > > yes, your understanding is correct. To further give an example I'd > > like to quote Haozheng who added two of the files in question: > > > > > > The two files originate from > > > > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/einsumfunc.py . > > > > I translated them from python to cpp. The original files are subject > > to the the following license: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17329#issuecomment- > > 640043814 > > > > Thank you > > Leonard > > > > On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 07:42 -0500, Bob Paulin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Let me restate to make sure I understand what's being asked. > > > > 1) There is third party code in the project that has Major > > Modifications to the original third party source. > > > > 2) The original third party code does not currently have two license > > headers > > > > (ex Third Party Code has MIT license only. Apache License header > > was added when it was checked into MXNet repo with modifications) > > > > 3) You are asking if the files can remain in the MXNet repository > > with both license headers. > > > > - Bob > > > > On 6/9/2020 5:07 PM, Leonard Lausen wrote: > > > > Hi Mentors, > > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party states the 5 > > rules for handling third-party code included in the project [1]. In > > particular PPMC shall handle major modifications on a case-by-case > > basis. > > > > But the other rules state > > > > > > 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within > > third- > > > > party works. > > > > and > > > > > > 2. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of > > third- party > > > > source files. > > > > The major modifications in question [2] are currently licensed under > > Apache License but the files originate from a third-party and there > > are thus two license headers in the files. This is in conflict with > > rule 2. > > > > Could you clarify if rule 2 is not a rule but only a guideline that > > can be overruled in PPMC's case-by-case decision? What's your > > recommendation? > > Ie. > > can > > we keep the 2 headers in place? > > > > Best regards > > Leonard > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > > 0. The term "third-party work" refers to a work not submitted > > directly to the ASF by the copyright owner or owner's agent. This > > includes parts of a work submitted directly to the ASF for which the > > submitter is not the copyright owner or owner's agent. > > 1. Do not modify or remove any copyright notices or licenses within > > third- > > party works. > > 2. Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated > > license, even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the > > third-party download site into the distribution. > > 3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of > > third- party source files. > > 4. Minor modifications/additions to third-party source files should > > typically be licensed under the same terms as the rest of the rest > > of the third- party source for convenience. > > 5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with > > on a case-by-case basis by the PMC. > > > > [2]: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17329#issuecomment- > > 641311199 > > > >
