Brilliant :) On Thursday, March 17, 2016, Chip Senkbeil <chip.senkb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to give a status update with this one. JeroMQ is down to just > four contributors that have not responded. The current, active committers > for JeroMQ have reverted the commits for one of the contributors here: > > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/pull/333 > > So, progress is still being made on this one! > > > +1 > > > > > On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Gino Bustelo <lbust...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > @john The 0mq ecosystem is made up of many projects of different sizes > and maturity. > > In the case of JeroMQ, the committers are showing an overwhelming > momentum to transition to > > MPL. I don't see any reason for us to consider any other alternative at > this juncture. > > > > > > Gino B. > > > > > >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Having chatted around the 0mq community in the past; I've confidence > in > > >> their desire to move to MPL; and 26/32 committers is a great step > forward. > > >> You raise a good reservation though John - if you remove the blocker > on the > > >> usage side, it's easy for the licensing to remain as is. > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm +1 for releasing, with a prominent note of the LGPL dependency > (along > > >> with a note of the resolution plan). It might be that the Toree > committers > > >> may be motivated to rewrite code over at 0mq if there ends up being > any > > >> committers who are unavailable or unwilling to relicense. > > >> > > >> Hen > > >> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:45 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Sorry, misread the revision I was looking at. The intent to move to > MPL > > >>> was done on March 22 2014, 2 years ago this month, not December 2013. > > >>> > > >>> John > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org > <javascript:;>> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> I have some reservations with what you're proposing, and would like > you > > >>> to > > >>>> consult w/ legal-discuss on this first. > > >>>> > > >>>> There's a difference between what Mynewt did and what you're > proposing. > > >>>> Specifically, this was a transitive dependency that they relied upon > > >>>> indirectly, so its more of a call out for the library that was > leveraging > > >>>> it. They also intended to replace the library. > > >>>> > > >>>> In your case, you're directly tied to a presently LGPL'd library. > You > > >>>> have no intentions (from what I can see) of moving off of the > library. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm also doubting their long term goals of moving to MPL. If you > look at > > >>>> [1], you'll see that the page hasn't been updated since October > 2014. In > > >>>> addition, looking at the pages revision history (the beauty of > wikis), > > >>> the > > >>>> intent to move to MPL was published in December 2013, making the > > >>> statement > > >>>> over 2 years old. > > >>>> > > >>>> I think while this might be OK for an initial incubator release, the > > >>>> project needs to weigh very heavily if it wants to continue to > leverage > > >>>> ZeroMQ or not going forward. > > >>>> > > >>>> [1]: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:06 PM Gino Bustelo <g...@bustelos.com > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Wanted to give folks an update on our progress with dealing with > JeroMQ, > > >>>>> an > > >>>>> LGPL package that enables us to communicate via 0MQ. The 0MQ > community > > >>> is > > >>>>> very aware of the issues with LGPL (LGPLv3 + static link exception) > and > > >>> it > > >>>>> is their intention to try to move projects to MPL v2. This is not > an > > >>> easy > > >>>>> task depending on the age and size of the projects. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apache Toree's API access point is through the 0MQ transport layer > > >>> (using > > >>>>> JeroMQ) and that is how Apache Toree connects out-of-the-box with > > >>> Jupyter, > > >>>>> a very common way of consuming Apache Toree that is already in > > >>> production. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> At this point, the JeroMQ project is still released under LGPL, but > our > > >>>>> team initiated communications in mid-February with members of the > JeroMQ > > >>>>> community to begin their transition to MPL v2 ( > > >>>>> https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/326). The JeroMQ community > > >>>>> reacted > > >>>>> very positively and quickly began the process of collecting votes > from > > >>>>> their committers (https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/327). > After > > >>> 15 > > >>>>> days, the current tally stands at 26 out of 32 committers have > agreed > > to > > >>>>> switch license. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Apache Toree has a JIRA ( > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOREE-262) > > >>>>> where we keep all the relevant links and update with the latest > > >>>>> information. As that process is underway, we will move forward with > > >>> plans > > >>>>> to release a 0.1.0 version of Apache Toree based on the precedence > set > > >>> by > > >>>>> Apache Mynewt ( > > >>> > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201602.mbox/%3C5F118AA0-4ADA-403B-A6EB-4A85F0B30651%40me.com%3E > > >>>>> ). > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>> Gino > > >>> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> >
