Incubator-mxnet: remove mkl blas lincense
According to @general discussion, we should remove MKL BLAS lincense if we are not shipping it with our source release.
Currently we added it in license file here: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/LICENSE#L624
cc @pengzhao-intel
roywei
All 10 comments
Hey, this is the MXNet Label Bot.
Thank you for submitting the issue! I will try and suggest some labels so that the appropriate MXNet community members can help resolve it.
Here are my recommended labels: Build
mxnet-label-bot
on 16 Jul 2019
@mxnet-label-bot add [Licenses]
roywei
on 16 Jul 2019
Yes, I think it makes sense to remove MKL license because full MKL package is an option.
@roywei would you mind file a PR to remove it?
pengzhao-intel
on 16 Jul 2019
cc @TaoLv
pengzhao-intel
on 16 Jul 2019
It isn't to do with "full MKL package being an option" per se, although related. There is a file that is downloaded as part of the build process that has the "Intel庐 Simplified license". The file is downloaded under external and then copied into build/install. However, there is no source file in your source tarball that has such a license, hence it should not be part of the LICENSE file.
paulk-asert
on 16 Jul 2019
I should also note that while removing the section from the source LICENSE file fixes the source tarball, you still seem to have issues with other artefacts, e.g. mxnet-full_2.11-linux-x86_64-cpu-1.5.0-SNAPSHOT.jar (as an example) contains the affected .so files and so should mention that license within it's META_INF/LICENSE file which it does not (nor any of the other compatible licenses). Of course, then the issues which @jmclean mentioned wrt category-x apply to that artefact. The general strategy I have seen used in such cases is to have the respective .so files come in via an optional non-Apache artefact and be automatically added to library path as needed.
paulk-asert
on 17 Jul 2019
Yes, I think it makes sense to remove MKL license because full MKL package is an option.
@roywei would you mind file a PR to remove it?
@roywei Did you remove this, or did we just modify the license appropriately? Can you summarize what is left to do to close this issue?
samskalicky
on 14 Oct 2019
@samskalicky I think this can be closed when we integrate with mkldnn v1.0, which is still in a branch https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/mkldnn-v1.0
roywei
on 14 Oct 2019
Thanks, i'll follow up with the Intel folks
samskalicky
on 14 Oct 2019
@roywei @samskalicky I think this has been fixed on master branch. I'm closing this issue. Feel free to reopen if any concern. Thanks.
TaoLv
on 1 Nov 2019
Related issues
dushoufu
路
3Comments
realbns2008
路
3Comments
Shiro-LK
路
3Comments
seongkyun
路
3Comments
Zhaoyang-XU
路
3Comments
Most helpful comment
It isn't to do with "full MKL package being an option" per se, although related. There is a file that is downloaded as part of the build process that has the "Intel庐 Simplified license". The file is downloaded under
externaland then copied intobuild/install. However, there is no source file in your source tarball that has such a license, hence it should not be part of the LICENSE file.