Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-10 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-10 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-07 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-07 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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.

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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. >> > >

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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

ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

2017-07-06 Thread 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,