activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martyn Taylor <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Artemis 1.2.0
Date Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:15:17 GMT
I do not see what the issue is here.  We are not *distributing* any LGPL 
licensed library.  We simply use it, if it is available. As Hiram said, 
how does this differ from relying on bash or win32?

To quote the legal docs:


Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. As with the 
previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the 
component's licence terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. 
For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK.

I'd prefer not to require a CLI option that requires a user to 
proactively enable the use of libaio.  The ASYNCIO journal is what we 
recommend, and one of the main reasons we get such good performance on 
persisted messages, for this reason it should be default.  I agree with 
Hiram in that changing the defaults would hinder user experience, as the 
default configuration is now considerably slower.  Out of the box 
configuration should in my opinion be as close to optimum as we can.  
Having a user read the documentation, understand what ASYNCIO is, what 
benefits it has and then make a decision to enable it, is more effort.

Rather than go around in circles arguing whether this is against 
licensing policy or not, I will fire an email to legal now and get a 
definitive answer.


On 23/12/15 21:12, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I think the binary distro uses the if it's installed in your
> system.  Since it's optional, the broker should still start up fine
> even if libaio is not installed, but it wont get used either.
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Daniel Kulp <> wrote:
>> Question: If I grab Artemis 1.1.0 tarbal/zip and start up the broker “out of the
box”, does it use libaio or not?  If I specifically have to configure something (pass a
flag, edit a config file, etc…) to enable use if the LGPL library, then fine.    However,
if it’s something that occurs completely automatically without the user even knowing that
it’s occurring, then I have a major problem with it.  It needs to be something that the
user has to explicitly CHOOSE to use.
>> Dan
>>> On Dec 23, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Clebert Suconic <>
>>> also, there has also been questions about it during the donation
>>> process.. licenses reviewed.. etc.. so I don't think we need to open a
>>> new discussions over this. the binary inclusion on the source was
>>> something that was fixed now.
>>> The dependency on libaio on the C code is through through dynamic
>>> linked library, and is the same as any C code depending on libc or
>>> gcc.
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Clebert Suconic
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John D. Ament <>
>>>>> Just wondering, does anyone plan to raise the LGPL question w/ legal
>>>>> discuss?  If we're waiting for the new year to do the next release, would
>>>>> be good to at least start the discussion.
>>>> We had such discussion long ago with legal. I couldn't find that email
>>>> on my inbox but we specifically asked questions about it. We were ok
>>>> as I remember. Maybe someone else (Martyn?) will have it on their
>>>> inboxes. For that reason I don't want to go over the same issue we had
>>>> asked before.
>>>> The use of libaio is optional anyways and the system works as
>>>> expected. what also covers other questions we had here on this thread.
>>> --
>>> Clebert Suconic
>> --
>> Daniel Kulp
>> -
>> Talend Community Coder -

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message