Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Dominic Divakaruni]

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  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  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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> > > #include 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 
> > > 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  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 <
> > luckbr1...@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 <
> bay...@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 Cell

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Greg Stein]

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.divakar...@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  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  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 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because
>> of
>> > > #include 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 
>> > > 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  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 <
>> > luckbr1...@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 <
>> bay...@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
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Felix Cheung]

Ah all good then.


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Mu Li  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  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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> > > #include 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 
> > > 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  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 <
> > luckbr1...@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 <
> bay...@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Mu Li]

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  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 
> wrote:
>
> > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> > #include 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 
> > 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  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 <
> luckbr1...@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 
> > > > 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/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Phil Sorber]

What about nanomsg? It's supposed to be a functional replacement for
ZeroMQ, has C++ bindings available and is MIT licensed.

http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM Felix Cheung  wrote:

> I think the header is required at compile time but zeromq is optional at
> runtime.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:54 AM Greg Stein  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 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> > > #include 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 
> > > 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  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 <
> > luckbr1...@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 <
> bay...@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Felix Cheung]

I think the header is required at compile time but zeromq is optional at
runtime.


On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:54 AM Greg Stein  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 
> wrote:
>
> > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> > #include 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 
> > 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  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 <
> luckbr1...@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 
> > > > 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/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Greg Stein]

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  wrote:

> Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
> #include 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 
> 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  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  >
> > > 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 
> > > 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/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Felix Cheung]

Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
#include 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  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  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 
> > 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 
> > 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/
> > >
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[John D. Ament]

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  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 
> 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 
> 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/
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Mu Li]

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 
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  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/
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Luciano Resende]

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  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/

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Mu Li]

It's optional for MXNet to use ZeroMQ. Even if it is enabled, the source
codes of MXNet will not contain any codes from ZeroMQ except for
"include" and calling zeromq's APIs. But if we want to ship the
binary, it will link against libzeromq.a

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> Hen,
>
> Can you give some more info about how MXnet uses ZeroMQ?  Is it an optional
> dependency or required?  Are you actually bundling ZeroMQ in your release
> (source or binary)?
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:23 AM Henri Yandell  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
> >
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[John D. Ament]

Hen,

Can you give some more info about how MXnet uses ZeroMQ?  Is it an optional
dependency or required?  Are you actually bundling ZeroMQ in your release
(source or binary)?

John

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:23 AM Henri Yandell  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
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Ted Dunning]

I think that the goals are really quite different.

But I don't know about Artemis very much.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Chris Mattmann  wrote:

> Hi Hen,
>
> Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell"  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
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Chris Mattmann]

Hi Hen,

Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?

Cheers,
Chris




On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell"  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




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Shane Curcuru]

Greg Stein wrote on 7/6/17 4:01 AM:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
>> ...
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I'm not super cozy with the idea of explicit exceptions to licensing
> issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.

I'm not cozy either.  And you've confirmed crystal-clear that the
exception is clearly valid in this use case and that users won't somehow
believe (or need to act) as if the reciprocal clauses in the Zero*
software would apply to the podling's release?
> 
> Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
> itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
> towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?
> 
> 
>> Any concerns before I do so?
>>
> 
> I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
> provided.

Agreed.  Including LGPL code in any Apache product release is not a good
idea immaterial of any explicit exceptions.  Merely because the
exception may technically make it legally compliant is not the point;
end-users will be surprised to see anything *GPL* in Apache products.

> 
> Cheers,
> -g
-- 

- Shane
  https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
>...

> 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.
>

I'm not super cozy with the idea of explicit exceptions to licensing
issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.

Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?


> Any concerns before I do so?
>

I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
provided.

Cheers,
-g

ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

[Henri Yandell]

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