What about nanomsg? It's supposed to be a functional replacement for ZeroMQ, has C++ bindings available and is MIT licensed.
http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:02 AM Felix Cheung <felixche...@apache.org> wrote: > I think the header is required at compile time but zeromq is optional at > runtime. > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
