Re: Discussion Forums?

y intends to use the > forum as a primary mode of handling user support, does it need to be hosted > on the VM provided by Apache, or can we host it elsewhere? > > Thanks, > Seb > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 8:57 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, S

Re: Discussion Forums?

a standard pattern, built around an apache.org website and mailing lists. But if you'd like to run Discourse, that will require an ongoing commitment from the MXNet community, in perpetuity. Discuss with your Mentors, and if that is your decision, then have a Mentor file a ticket for a VM. Cheers,

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

milar library is straightforward, but it is >> marked as low priority because only a small portion of users wants to >> compile with USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1. >> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > If it is optional at

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

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 wrote: > Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from

Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell 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