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 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 08:54:07 GMT
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/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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