-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6.8k
[1.8.x] LICENSE needs update/review #19427
Comments
An alternative is to stop redistributing the 3rdparty code an provide scripts for users to download the 3rdparty code during / before build configuration. |
Regarding intgemm, I think #19406 covers me. MIT (most code) and Boost and explicitly mentioned. |
Thanks! Marked integemm as done. |
mshadow has already been handled with the merge. it's not whitelisted in rat-exclude and it's not actually 3rdparty anymore. |
@PatricZhao could someone on your team help verify mkldnn licenses? |
Thanks @szha does this apply to ctc_include too? |
There was no change in nvidia_cub licensing. For onnx-tensorrt - there is a change to pybind licensing (3rdparty of onnx, which is 3rdparty of onnx-tensorrt), resolving #15547. |
Does this change include the issues raised in the email thread? Is the pybind license up-to-date with these files:
|
@samskalicky - TVM is already covered -https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.8.x/LICENSE#L235 what needs to be done here? Should we transitively callout TVM's depedencies as well? https://github.com/apache/incubator-tvm/blob/9bd2c7b44208ed992061f8c2688e1137357f1db1/LICENSE#L209 |
it looks like ctc_include has not been changed since Oct 2018. it uses the exact same apache 2.0 license as ours except for this line at the end of their license file
we have this
Update: ctc_include in turn includes
|
We need to review that there have not been any changes to files in TVM and its 3rdparty (and those 3rdparty's 3rdparty....etc), and that if any have changed that their licenses that we update our license. |
@samskalicky ctc_include hasen't changed since past 2years. Moderngpu has 3 clause BSD license and all the remaining files have Apache 2.0 so that can be marked as done. |
Quick question:
Some files have |
The following files in
have
instead of
as written in MXNet License file
Wee need to add another line
to point 5 in our license file |
For dmlc-core, we have the following items that are not included in our license: |
@sandeep-krishnamurthy I think the main issue here is that our LICENSE file may not currently list all dependencies of dependencies (submodules of the submodules). We can refer to "Dependencies of dependencies" section of https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html
|
Found the following four LICENSE files for 3rdparty/googletest
MXNet license file gives a range of years that includes the 3rd party copyright year. Is this acceptable? Or should we update it to exactly match the 3rdparty files? @leezu @szha @samskalicky |
For mkldnn we have: For its submodules: 9. CMake FindCUDAToolkit.cmake, FindOpenCL.cmake - For details, see, 19. Benchdnn - For details, see 3rdparty/mkldnn/tests/benchdnn/README.md Not listed in our license but listed in mkldnn/THIRD-PARTY-PROGRAMS: |
openmp uses a customized version of the Apache License v2.0
Specifically
I am not sure if we should mention this in our License.
|
prepared a pr #19439 |
#19440 should have all license updates consolidated for all submodules. |
@anko-intel to take care |
@ciyongch do you have any sense for this part? |
Regarding 3rdparty/mkldnn, it seems there're some new files/license updates added in v1.6.4 (MX 1.8.x) compared to v1.3 (in MX 1.7.0), so we need to update the new license or statement in the top level LICENSE files to reflect the change as well. I've the same questions on whether the year range is sufficient or not for the Copyright statement? For example, there're several different year (range) like: 2016-2020, 2017-2020, 2018-2020, 2019-2020, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 used in different mkldnn files, is that acceptable to just keep the year range instead of listing all the individual different years? |
@ciyongch I think it's fine to just update the range of years if the copyright holder is exactly the same. |
Thanks @bartekkuncer to add the missing info for mkldnn. |
Thanks everyone, after the #19440 and #19443 we've covered all the submodules. We need to do better about maintaining the LICENSE when updating submodules moving forward. I'll be sure to include this in the summary for the v1.8.0 release when it completes and we can followup on the mailing list. Thanks again for everyone's help, it was great to see the community come together to address these issues! Cheers! |
Description
Per the discussion on Apache general regarding the v1.8.0.rc1 vote, we need to review and update our license file.
We need to review each 3rdparty submodule's LICENSE and update the corresponding entries in the MXNet LICENSE file:
intgemm [DONE][@kpuatamazon link]mshadow [DONE][@szha link]nvidia_cub [DONE][@ptrendx link]For each submodule, we need to verify that all entries in that LICENSE file is included in our MXNet license file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: