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 <muli....@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 <gst...@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 <felixche...@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 <johndam...@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....@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 < >> > 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 >
