You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by ooibc <oo...@comp.nus.edu.sg> on 2016/01/10 06:32:10 UTC
[VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Hi all,
The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
Apache
SINGA 0.2.0 (incubating).
The vote thread is at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCAJz0iLtBLSr3AZ%3DJVPedBkK%3Dhtpw8vQKax%3DvkrcORCzAcDXneA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
and the result is at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCAJz0iLsDeSoqrAYU0GPh53wrAGB_0EYMp48F8j%3DHHptDx_Zpzg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/0.2.0/
The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.md5: 81 D3 6D 55 04 2A 29 FD
60 0D D9 4C 3F 82 AD 12
apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.sha256: 81A51193 42739F56
A6BEA6F5 A9D12229 BC0C6CFF DE2D3B14 9B157944 7B8CAD49
Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
and the signature file is:
apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool following
```
./configure
make rat
```
The result is in rat_check file.
To install and test the new features, please read the README file and
refer
to SINGA website http://singa.apache.org/downloads.html,
http://singa.apache.org/docs/index.html
The vote is open for at least 72 hours, or until the necessary number of
votes (3 +1) is reached.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 0.2.0-incubating
[ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
Thanks.
Regards,
Beng Chin Ooi
www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~ooibc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[CANCEL][VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0 (RC1)
Posted by ooibc <oo...@comp.nus.edu.sg>.
Hi,
We are cancelling this vote and will call another vote for RC2.
regards
beng chin
On 2016-01-10 13:32, ooibc wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The SINGA community has voted on and approved a proposal to release
> Apache
> SINGA 0.2.0 (incubating).
>
> The vote thread is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCAJz0iLtBLSr3AZ%3DJVPedBkK%3Dhtpw8vQKax%3DvkrcORCzAcDXneA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> and the result is at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/singa-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCAJz0iLsDeSoqrAYU0GPh53wrAGB_0EYMp48F8j%3DHHptDx_Zpzg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> We ask the IPMC to vote on this release.
>
>
> The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/0.2.0/
>
> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
> apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.md5: 81 D3 6D 55 04 2A 29 FD
> 60 0D D9 4C 3F 82 AD 12
> apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.sha256: 81A51193 42739F56
> A6BEA6F5 A9D12229 BC0C6CFF DE2D3B14 9B157944 7B8CAD49
>
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/dinhtta.asc
>
> and the signature file is:
> apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0-RC1.tar.gz.asc
>
>
>
> To check the license, you can use the Apache Rat tool following
> ```
> ./configure
> make rat
> ```
> The result is in rat_check file.
> To install and test the new features, please read the README file and
> refer
> to SINGA website http://singa.apache.org/downloads.html,
> http://singa.apache.org/docs/index.html
>
>
> The vote is open for at least 72 hours, or until the necessary number
> of
> votes (3 +1) is reached.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SINGA 0.2.0-incubating
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Beng Chin Ooi
> www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~ooibc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On Jan 10, 2016 4:26 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
>
> So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute.
[3][4]
>
> Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple
of places.
>
> For instance:
> - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
> - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this
special exception that is!
There is no modification to the license. The files in question are
dual-licensed, either GPL or the terms of your OSS software which uses
autoconf, which in our case is AL 2.0.
> - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to
mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as
indicated in the header text?
No. We don't ship GPL software, the applicable terms are AL 2.0 :)
Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK.
It’s been discussed see [1][2][3[4]], note that is just for GPL with a specific exclusion not ordinary GPL licenced software.
The exclusion states:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License,
# if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that
# is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the
# same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
But if you think this needs further discussion on legal just say so and I’ll take it there.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://markmail.org/thread/trsh3f3ucycxlgfm
2. http://markmail.org/thread/wtbf7tb2ooysk3ok
3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. If there has been a documented decision to allow this then the legal policy docs need updating before we start updating any Incubator docs
Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Justin Mclean<ma...@classsoftware.com>
Sent: 1/10/2016 2:26 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Hi,
Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]
Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of places.
For instance:
- The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
- Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special exception that is!
- When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the header text?
- Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this special exception as OK? [3]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23category-a&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=aSNEqx8NmabA8UolEgFlrB8ajBnoVUlAoZz0bJzJ9uE%3d
2. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23category-x&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Sot3aqmOsqydq0Q6IFOtV%2f8Az3BlNNgM910Hzo%2fCqaU%3d
3. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.apache.org%2flegal%2fresolved.html%23build-tools&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=h%2bJm9oUXBy0qT7KG2O4fXi7IfdWDe5TUtgIgGKEjw2g%3d
4. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fissues.apache.org%2fjira%2fbrowse%2fLEGAL-58&data=01%7c01%7cRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7cbeab44169c784bde924e08d31a0d1362%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Bxkp6g%2bobdHKrFboEMBnxzSdXkvp6yLg2AHwZePJ%2b%2bg%3d
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'm wondering if this should be over at legal discuss
On Jan 10, 2016 19:40, "Roman Shaposhnik" <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
> >
> > So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute.
> [3][4]
> >
> > Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a
> couple of places.
> >
> > For instance:
> > - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license
> [1]
> > - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this
> special exception that is!
> > - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to
> mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as
> indicated in the header text?
> > - Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this
> special exception as OK? [3]
>
> This is very serendipitous, since I was about to send a very similar
> question
> asking whether it would be kosher for HAWQ to ship the following folder:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config
>
> To make this story even more interesting: this folder has bee lifter pretty
> much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that
> PostgreSQL community feels it is kosher to have it in an otherwise
> PostgreSQL licensed release.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
>
> So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]
>
> Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of places.
>
> For instance:
> - The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
> - Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special exception that is!
> - When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the header text?
> - Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this special exception as OK? [3]
This is very serendipitous, since I was about to send a very similar question
asking whether it would be kosher for HAWQ to ship the following folder:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/master/config
To make this story even more interesting: this folder has bee lifter pretty
much verbatim from PostgreSQL release tarball. I guess it means that
PostgreSQL community feels it is kosher to have it in an otherwise
PostgreSQL licensed release.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute. [3][4]
Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple of places.
For instance:
- The "GNU Free For All” license is not listed as a Category A license [1]
- Special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2]. Except for this special exception that is!
- When distributing GPL software with this exception do we need to mention so in LICENSE? Do we also need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the header text?
- Should the text under the built tools question mention GPL with this special exception as OK? [3]
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
3. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
4. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-58
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Anh Dinh <di...@comp.nus.edu.sg>.
Thanks Justin for the detailed check,
> GPL licensed files includes:
> ./config/ltmain.sh
> ./config/ltversion.m4
> ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
> ./config/config.guess
> ./config/config.sub
> ./config/install-sh (?)
> ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
>
> While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files
> here are OK.
>
We understand that those buildtool files can be included, and have indeed
exclude them from RAT check (see rat-excludes)
> For LICENSE:
> - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
> - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
> - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has an
> incorrect ASF header
> - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly
> tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
> - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
> - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin Feildel”
> - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear if
> they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of OK
> [3]
> - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of
> California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
>
Thanks for pointing these out, they are entirely valid. From the last
release, we have restructured the codebase but forgotten to update the
LICENSE file, which result in the invalid paths.
Files in include/mshadows/* are bundled from mshadow project (
https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow) and they carry Apache v2.0 license (
https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow/blob/master/LICENSE).
Other issues are due to our oversight, we apologize and will rectify them.
Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails
> for me with:
> configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
>
> Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but
> it’s not 100% clear.
>
Please refer to the README.md file for the build instruction. There's the
solution to the error you encountered (due to the compiler not be able to
find OpenBLAS library) in the FAQ section in the file.
Regards,
Anh.
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> We have updated the files to resolve the license issues.
Thanks for making the changes.
As the RC artefact has changed I believe the PPMC would need to revote on it before the IPMC can vote on it. Given there been no code changes that PPMC vote should be a trivial process.
> We managed to run SINGA on Mac OS.
There's no requirement for it to run on OS X you may want to mention supported platforms in the README.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Wang Wei <wa...@comp.nus.edu.sg>.
Thanks for your comments, Daniel and Justine.
We have updated the files to resolve the license issues.
New path: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/singa/0.2.0-RC1/
MD5: E2 10 59 04 9F F1 B8 F1 10 25 82 9A B9 72 6A 4C
SHA256: D08C0425 87B9EB50 2C70E527 11DC4C7F 1768EB7F 9CDBB0EB 0573CFAC
34A943C3
The changes include:
1. We removed the license in Makefile.am. Consequently, it will disappear
in Makefile.in.
2. For LICENSE:
paths to tinydir.h and common.h, cpplint.py are updated.
cuda_utils.h and create_data.cc are added into LICENSE
tinydir.h's copyright is updated.
the years for caffe's copyright are correct.- copyright "Copyright (c)
2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of California (Regents)” may be
incorrect, you may want to double check years
We managed to run SINGA on Mac OS. But some dependent libraries are not
easy to install. We will prepare scripts for installing SINGA for Mac OS in
the next release. Currently, it is mainly tested on Ubuntu and CentOS.
Best,
Wei
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> +0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers.
>
> The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have
> exceptions for use which allows it.
>
> I ran it through my usual stuff,
> http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0
> - and every single GPL-licensed file has an exception which allows it to
> be bundled with ALv2 projects.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> On 01/10/2016 01:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and
> other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to
> reconsider if explained.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - release contains incubating
> > - signatures and hashes good
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE has some minor issues
> > - NOTICE contains too much information
> > - No binaries in source
> > - All source files have apache header
> > - Unable to compile from source
> >
> > GPL licensed files includes:
> > ./config/ltmain.sh
> > ./config/ltversion.m4
> > ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
> > ./config/config.guess
> > ./config/config.sub
> > ./config/install-sh (?)
> > ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
> >
> > While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files
> here are OK.
> >
> > For LICENSE:
> > - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
> > - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
> > - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has
> an incorrect ASF header
> > - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly
> tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
> > - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
> > - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin
> Feildel”
> > - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear
> if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of
> OK [3]
> > - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of
> California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
> >
> > May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
> >
> > Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line
> which you may want to fix.
> >
> > For NOTICE:
> > - No need to include BSD licence information [4]
> > - Too much info in NOTICE [5]
> > - No need to list non bundled software [6]
> >
> > Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails
> for me with:
> > configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
> >
> > Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but
> it’s not 100% clear.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > 3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
> > 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> > 6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
IANAL, but the files state:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License,
# if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that
# is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the
# same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
If this is indeed what's happening, then it should be okay. httpd uses
some of the same GPL'd build files with this exception applied to it.
With regards,
Daniel.
On 01/10/2016 06:18 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Could you explain those exceptions? I don't think I've ever heard of GPL
> being OK'd to use in an AL release.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers.
>>
>> The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have
>> exceptions for use which allows it.
>>
>> I ran it through my usual stuff,
>> http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0
>> - and every single GPL-licensed file has an exception which allows it to
>> be bundled with ALv2 projects.
>>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
>> On 01/10/2016 01:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and
>> other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to
>> reconsider if explained.
>>>
>>> I checked:
>>> - release contains incubating
>>> - signatures and hashes good
>>> - DISCLAIMER exists
>>> - LICENSE has some minor issues
>>> - NOTICE contains too much information
>>> - No binaries in source
>>> - All source files have apache header
>>> - Unable to compile from source
>>>
>>> GPL licensed files includes:
>>> ./config/ltmain.sh
>>> ./config/ltversion.m4
>>> ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
>>> ./config/config.guess
>>> ./config/config.sub
>>> ./config/install-sh (?)
>>> ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
>>>
>>> While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files
>> here are OK.
>>>
>>> For LICENSE:
>>> - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
>>> - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
>>> - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has
>> an incorrect ASF header
>>> - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly
>> tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
>>> - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
>>> - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin
>> Feildel”
>>> - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear
>> if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of
>> OK [3]
>>> - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of
>> California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
>>>
>>> May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
>>>
>>> Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line
>> which you may want to fix.
>>>
>>> For NOTICE:
>>> - No need to include BSD licence information [4]
>>> - Too much info in NOTICE [5]
>>> - No need to list non bundled software [6]
>>>
>>> Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails
>> for me with:
>>> configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
>>>
>>> Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but
>> it’s not 100% clear.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>>> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>> 3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
>>> 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>> 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>>> 6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
>>> 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
John,
The language within the header of those files includes things like the
following as found in ltmain.sh
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License,
# if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that
# is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the
# same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
I suspect that is the exception being referred to here since they
mentioned their use is consistent with being for build.
Thanks
Joe
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Could you explain those exceptions? I don't think I've ever heard of GPL
> being OK'd to use in an AL release.
>
> John
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers.
>>
>> The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have
>> exceptions for use which allows it.
>>
>> I ran it through my usual stuff,
>> http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0
>> - and every single GPL-licensed file has an exception which allows it to
>> be bundled with ALv2 projects.
>>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
>> On 01/10/2016 01:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and
>> other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to
>> reconsider if explained.
>> >
>> > I checked:
>> > - release contains incubating
>> > - signatures and hashes good
>> > - DISCLAIMER exists
>> > - LICENSE has some minor issues
>> > - NOTICE contains too much information
>> > - No binaries in source
>> > - All source files have apache header
>> > - Unable to compile from source
>> >
>> > GPL licensed files includes:
>> > ./config/ltmain.sh
>> > ./config/ltversion.m4
>> > ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
>> > ./config/config.guess
>> > ./config/config.sub
>> > ./config/install-sh (?)
>> > ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
>> >
>> > While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files
>> here are OK.
>> >
>> > For LICENSE:
>> > - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
>> > - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
>> > - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has
>> an incorrect ASF header
>> > - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly
>> tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
>> > - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
>> > - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin
>> Feildel”
>> > - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear
>> if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of
>> OK [3]
>> > - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of
>> California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
>> >
>> > May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
>> >
>> > Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line
>> which you may want to fix.
>> >
>> > For NOTICE:
>> > - No need to include BSD licence information [4]
>> > - Too much info in NOTICE [5]
>> > - No need to list non bundled software [6]
>> >
>> > Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails
>> for me with:
>> > configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
>> >
>> > Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but
>> it’s not 100% clear.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>> > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>> > 3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
>> > 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>> > 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
>> > 6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
>> > 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Daniel,
Could you explain those exceptions? I don't think I've ever heard of GPL
being OK'd to use in an AL release.
John
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:41 AM Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> +0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers.
>
> The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have
> exceptions for use which allows it.
>
> I ran it through my usual stuff,
> http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0
> - and every single GPL-licensed file has an exception which allows it to
> be bundled with ALv2 projects.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> On 01/10/2016 01:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and
> other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to
> reconsider if explained.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - release contains incubating
> > - signatures and hashes good
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE has some minor issues
> > - NOTICE contains too much information
> > - No binaries in source
> > - All source files have apache header
> > - Unable to compile from source
> >
> > GPL licensed files includes:
> > ./config/ltmain.sh
> > ./config/ltversion.m4
> > ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
> > ./config/config.guess
> > ./config/config.sub
> > ./config/install-sh (?)
> > ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
> >
> > While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files
> here are OK.
> >
> > For LICENSE:
> > - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
> > - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
> > - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has
> an incorrect ASF header
> > - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly
> tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
> > - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
> > - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin
> Feildel”
> > - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear
> if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of
> OK [3]
> > - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of
> California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
> >
> > May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
> >
> > Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line
> which you may want to fix.
> >
> > For NOTICE:
> > - No need to include BSD licence information [4]
> > - Too much info in NOTICE [5]
> > - No need to list non bundled software [6]
> >
> > Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails
> for me with:
> > configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
> >
> > Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but
> it’s not 100% clear.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > 3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
> > 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> > 6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
+0.999 - seem okay but some files are missing license headers.
The seemingly GPL (some aren't GPL at all) files Justin linked to have
exceptions for use which allows it.
I ran it through my usual stuff,
http://compliance.rocks/result.html?358649c0
- and every single GPL-licensed file has an exception which allows it to
be bundled with ALv2 projects.
With regards,
Daniel.
On 01/10/2016 01:14 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to reconsider if explained.
>
> I checked:
> - release contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has some minor issues
> - NOTICE contains too much information
> - No binaries in source
> - All source files have apache header
> - Unable to compile from source
>
> GPL licensed files includes:
> ./config/ltmain.sh
> ./config/ltversion.m4
> ./config/lt~obsolete.m4
> ./config/config.guess
> ./config/config.sub
> ./config/install-sh (?)
> ./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
>
> While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files here are OK.
>
> For LICENSE:
> - path to tinydir.h is incorrect
> - missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
> - include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has an incorrect ASF header
> - missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
> - missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
> - copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin Feildel”
> - files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of OK [3]
> - copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
>
> May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
>
> Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line which you may want to fix.
>
> For NOTICE:
> - No need to include BSD licence information [4]
> - Too much info in NOTICE [5]
> - No need to list non bundled software [6]
>
> Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails for me with:
> configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
>
> Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but it’s not 100% clear.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
> 4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
> 6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> 7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.2.0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Sorry it’s -1 binding due to the inclusion of GPL licenced files [1] and other license issues [2] and unable to compile from source. Happy to reconsider if explained.
I checked:
- release contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has some minor issues
- NOTICE contains too much information
- No binaries in source
- All source files have apache header
- Unable to compile from source
GPL licensed files includes:
./config/ltmain.sh
./config/ltversion.m4
./config/lt~obsolete.m4
./config/config.guess
./config/config.sub
./config/install-sh (?)
./Makefile.in (?) this also has a ASF header which seems odd
While this seems to be a build tool [7] I’m not 100% sure if all files here are OK.
For LICENSE:
- path to tinydir.h is incorrect
- missing licence for ./include/singa/utils/cuda_utils.h
- include/utils/common.h path is incorrect and the file most likely has an incorrect ASF header
- missing license for (BSD licensed) ./tool/cpplint.py. Possibly tool/cppling.py should be tool/cpplint.py?
- missing licence for (BSD license?) ./examples/rnnlm/create_data.cc
- copyright for tinydir is incorrect should be "Cong Xu, Baudouin Feildel”
- files in include/mshadow/* are missing Apache header so it’s unclear if they are Apache licensed or where they are from. I think this is sort of OK [3]
- copyright "Copyright (c) 2014, 2015, The Regents of the University of California (Regents)” may be incorrect, you may want to double check years
May be other issues as at this point i gave up.
Also LICENSE file is also missing some whitespace on the first line which you may want to fix.
For NOTICE:
- No need to include BSD licence information [4]
- Too much info in NOTICE [5]
- No need to list non bundled software [6]
Would also be nice to have compile instructions. On OS X configure fails for me with:
configure: error: unable to find cblas_sgemm() function
Assuming you run configure && make to compile and OS X is supported but it’s not 100% clear.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
3. https://github.com/dmlc/mshadow
4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
5. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
6. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
7. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#build-tools
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org