Greg Stein wrote on 7/6/17 4:01 AM: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> 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
