incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Date Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:13:02 GMT
Sure. As I noted "optional at compile-time", and it certainly looks that
way.

We just don't want to force downstream users to get adversely-licensed
products just to build our software. And MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE meets that
requirement.

Cheers,
-g


On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Dominic Divakaruni <
dominic.divakaruni@gmail.com> wrote:

> Greg, et al, do you believe this is a non-issue and resolved based on what
> Mu has said?
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ZeroMQ is used only if setting `USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1` during compilation.
>> In default, it is 0.
>>
>> The source codes are close to the following:
>>
>> #if MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
>> #include "zmq.h"
>> #endif  // MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
>>
>> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar library is straightforward, but it is
>> marked as low priority because only a small portion of users wants to
>> compile with USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If it is optional at compile-time, then a header file is very
>> allowable. As
>> > long as MXNet can be compiled without ZeroMQ on the box, then I see no
>> > issue at all.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because
>> of
>> > > #include<zeromq.h> though?
>> > >
>> > > That header file is still going to be LGPL 3.0 licensed right?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:45 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Mu,
>> > > >
>> > > > So what happens when ZeroMQ is not available, do you fall back to
>> > > something
>> > > > else?
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm inclined to say that this is allowable, knowing that its an
>> > optional
>> > > > dynamically linked dependency that has an alternative.  Assuming it
>> has
>> > > an
>> > > > alternative.
>> > > >
>> > > > I would strongly encourage podlings to try to leverage what the ASF
>> > > > provides, we ship a number of messaging systems that may be better
>> > from a
>> > > > licensing stand point - ActiveMQ, RocketMQ, Pulsar.
>> > > >
>> > > > John
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:27 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > MXNet's backend is written in C++, which is not able to use the
>> > > > > java interface.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Luciano Resende <
>> > luckbr1975@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Are you guys able to use this (which is what we use in Apache
>> > Toree)?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Which has been successfully relicensed?
>> > > > > > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/blob/master/LICENSE
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Henri Yandell <
>> bayard@apache.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > One of the items that is on the list to do before releasing
>> > Apache
>> > > > > MXNet
>> > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > removing ZeroMQ from the codebase/dependencies.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ZeroMQ is licensed under the LGPL 3.0 with an exception
for
>> > static
>> > > > > > > compiling.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > They have long been interested in relicensing to MPL
2.0, but
>> > > haven't
>> > > > > > made
>> > > > > > > much progress, though they did relicense JeroMQ (Java
>> > > > > > > wrapper/implementaiton) last year.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In the last few months they've made a lot of progress
towards
>> > > > > > relicensing:
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/tree/master/RELICENSE
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I'd like to ask on legal-discuss@ for an exception
(one
>> year?)
>> > to
>> > > > > > continue
>> > > > > > > using ZeroMQ, with prominent documentation, in MXNet
given the
>> > > trend
>> > > > > > > towards MPL 2.0.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Any concerns before I do so?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hen
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Luciano Resende
>> > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>> > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dominic Divakaruni
> 206.475.9200 <(206)%20475-9200> Cell
>

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