Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Henri Yandell]

Brilliant :)

On Thursday, March 17, 2016, Chip Senkbeil  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  > 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  > 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  >
> 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  >
> > >>> 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  >
> > 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 

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Chip Senkbeil]

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  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  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 
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 
> >>> 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 
> 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 

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Jim Jagielski]

+1

> On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Gino Bustelo  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  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  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 
>>> 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  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
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Gino Bustelo]

@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  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  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 
>> 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  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
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Henri Yandell]

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  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 
> 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  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
> >>
> >
>

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[John D. Ament]

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  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  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
>>
>

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[John D. Ament]

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  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
>

Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Gino Bustelo]

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

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Gino Bustelo]

Thanks @stian. I was trying to sell them on the bigger picture that being
able to consume 0MQ within Apache projects would increase their user base.

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
wrote:

> I know software licensing can be a difficult thing to investigate, not
> to mention change!
>
> So very well done for managing to influence another open source
> project!  Apache projects don't live in isolation, and participating
> in the wider community is also an important aspect of open
> development.
>
> I guess this might also be a good opportunity to promote Apache Toree
> within 0MQ community :)
>
>
> On 3 March 2016 at 14:58, Gino Bustelo  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
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

I know software licensing can be a difficult thing to investigate, not
to mention change!

So very well done for managing to influence another open source
project!  Apache projects don't live in isolation, and participating
in the wider community is also an important aspect of open
development.

I guess this might also be a good opportunity to promote Apache Toree
within 0MQ community :)


On 3 March 2016 at 14:58, Gino Bustelo  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



-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Gino Bustelo]

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