Podling Report Reminder - July 2017

Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 July 2017, 10:30 am PDT. The report for your podling will form a

Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet

I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license. You can find more out this here https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional Specifically, quote: "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use

Re: Licensing update per code move

Created a PR to resolve this issue. https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/pull/6944 Please have a review if it is ok. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > it clearly says that's for mini javascripts, images or PDFs - not for > source code. > > "Sometimes the

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Felix Cheung wrote: > Awesome - Rcpp11 is MIT license. > > Would Rcpp be up for relicensing Personally, I don't think Rcpp will be relicensed. > or would Rcpp11 be have in the roadmap required features to match Rcpp? > I don't know

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: Licensing update per code move

I am refering to https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#is-a-short-form-of-the-source-header-available On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > I am not aware of a shorter version. Below is the standard header that > needs to go into all the files. > >

Re: Licensing update per code move

I am not aware of a shorter version. Below is the standard header that needs to go into all the files. /* * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with * this work for additional information

Re: Licensing update per code move

I did notice that there is a shorter version of the header. I think we could use that ? Tianqi On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:58 AM Suneel Marthi wrote: > Yes its absolutely necessary that every file have a Apache license header - > and every project that comes into Apache does

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Re: Licensing update per code move

Yes its absolutely necessary that every file have a Apache license header - and every project that comes into Apache does that. No, its got to be at file level and not folder. Lookup RAT plugin - what all projects use to ensure that files have license headers. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:52 AM,

Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet

Hi, I am also in the Rcpp core team. Rcpp11 is a reimplementation of Rcpp using C++ 11 features. However, it lacks some features we used in MXNet R pacakge. Best, KK On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung wrote: > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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.

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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. >> > >

Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet

On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3 licensed. I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html _

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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

Licensing update per code move

Thought I'd describe one of the first sets of changes we should make when the code moves to an Apache git repo. We should update the licensing. 1) We should update the NOTICE file, once on Apache's source control, to say: Apache MXNet Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation This product

ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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,

Re: Podling Report Reminder - July 2017

Thanks Dominic :) I signed off with a couple of minor word changes (contributor->committer), (next->afterwards). On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Sebastian wrote: > Also signed off! > > > > On 06.07.2017 00:34, Markus Weimer wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Suneel