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/ > > >
