chore: Add LICENSE #98
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
VaishnaviHire
force-pushed
the
add_license
branch
from
6cdabbb to
e4e75f6
Compare
leseb
approved these changes
Jul 11, 2025
raghotham
suggested changes
Jul 13, 2025
Yes, I will update it. There were other client repos that used Apache. |
Signed-off-by: Vaishnavi Hire <vhire@redhat.com>
VaishnaviHire
force-pushed
the
add_license
branch
from
7e2dde2 to
879fe7e
Compare
raghotham
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2025
rhuss
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2025
This reverts commit 987937e. Signed-off-by: Roland Huß <rhuss@redhat.com>
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2025
Reverts #98 Sorry, I was a bit premature with my approval, as we probably still need a bit more discussion about licensing in general and especially about ownership. IANAL, but let's keep the PR open for a bit longer to find a good solution. So I will revert the previous PR if okay, but at the same time, I will open an identical one to #98 to continue the discussion. Approved-by: leseb
Merged
VaishnaviHire
added a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2025
Add Apache License to the llama-stack operator Signed-off-by: Vaishnavi Hire <vhire@redhat.com> (cherry picked from commit 987937e)
VaishnaviHire
pushed a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2025
Reverts llamastack#98 Sorry, I was a bit premature with my approval, as we probably still need a bit more discussion about licensing in general and especially about ownership. IANAL, but let's keep the PR open for a bit longer to find a good solution. So I will revert the previous PR if okay, but at the same time, I will open an identical one to llamastack#98 to continue the discussion. Approved-by: leseb (cherry picked from commit 29a26b3)
VaishnaviHire
added a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2025
Add Apache License to the llama-stack operator Signed-off-by: Vaishnavi Hire <vhire@redhat.com> (cherry picked from commit 987937e)
VaishnaviHire
pushed a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 16, 2025
Reverts llamastack#98 Sorry, I was a bit premature with my approval, as we probably still need a bit more discussion about licensing in general and especially about ownership. IANAL, but let's keep the PR open for a bit longer to find a good solution. So I will revert the previous PR if okay, but at the same time, I will open an identical one to llamastack#98 to continue the discussion. Approved-by: leseb (cherry picked from commit 29a26b3)
mergify bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
This is a re-make of #98 , that was prematurely approved (sorry, my bad). People have still some concerns that we need to resolve before merging the license. It can be an easy discussion, but IANAL, so better play safe and listen to some more voices. The questions actually are: * What is the implication to have `Copyright (c) 2025 Meta Llama` wrt to future work and when moving potentially to a foundation later ? Wouldn't it be bettet to use a neutral term like `Copyright (c) 2025 The Llama Stack community` ? * There are still repos in the GitHub `llamastack` org that uses an APL license, eg. [llama-stack-client-typescript/LICENSE](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-typescript/blob/generated/LICENSE), but I have the feeling all repos in that org should leverage the same license. * Also, other projects that are using the MIT license, have a different copyright holder line, like `Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates` in [llamastack/llama-stack-client-python](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-python/blob/fe7130c105885a97cbc67410050a45f3de2f2db5/LICENSE) My proposal would be to settle on a single license file with the same content and update all repositories atomically. Approved-by: leseb Approved-by: VaishnaviHire Approved-by: nathan-weinberg
VaishnaviHire
pushed a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
This is a re-make of llamastack#98 , that was prematurely approved (sorry, my bad). People have still some concerns that we need to resolve before merging the license. It can be an easy discussion, but IANAL, so better play safe and listen to some more voices. The questions actually are: * What is the implication to have `Copyright (c) 2025 Meta Llama` wrt to future work and when moving potentially to a foundation later ? Wouldn't it be bettet to use a neutral term like `Copyright (c) 2025 The Llama Stack community` ? * There are still repos in the GitHub `llamastack` org that uses an APL license, eg. [llama-stack-client-typescript/LICENSE](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-typescript/blob/generated/LICENSE), but I have the feeling all repos in that org should leverage the same license. * Also, other projects that are using the MIT license, have a different copyright holder line, like `Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates` in [llamastack/llama-stack-client-python](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-python/blob/fe7130c105885a97cbc67410050a45f3de2f2db5/LICENSE) My proposal would be to settle on a single license file with the same content and update all repositories atomically. Approved-by: leseb Approved-by: VaishnaviHire Approved-by: nathan-weinberg (cherry picked from commit 2b48cb8)
3 tasks
VaishnaviHire
pushed a commit
to VaishnaviHire/llama-stack-k8s-operator
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 23, 2025
This is a re-make of llamastack#98 , that was prematurely approved (sorry, my bad). People have still some concerns that we need to resolve before merging the license. It can be an easy discussion, but IANAL, so better play safe and listen to some more voices. The questions actually are: * What is the implication to have `Copyright (c) 2025 Meta Llama` wrt to future work and when moving potentially to a foundation later ? Wouldn't it be bettet to use a neutral term like `Copyright (c) 2025 The Llama Stack community` ? * There are still repos in the GitHub `llamastack` org that uses an APL license, eg. [llama-stack-client-typescript/LICENSE](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-typescript/blob/generated/LICENSE), but I have the feeling all repos in that org should leverage the same license. * Also, other projects that are using the MIT license, have a different copyright holder line, like `Copyright (c) Meta Platforms, Inc. and affiliates` in [llamastack/llama-stack-client-python](https://github.com/llamastack/llama-stack-client-python/blob/fe7130c105885a97cbc67410050a45f3de2f2db5/LICENSE) My proposal would be to settle on a single license file with the same content and update all repositories atomically. Approved-by: leseb Approved-by: VaishnaviHire Approved-by: nathan-weinberg (cherry picked from commit 2b48cb8) (cherry picked from commit 09038ff)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add Apache License to the llama-stack operator