Greg, et al, do you believe this is a non-issue and resolved based on what
Mu has said?
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Mu Li wrote:
> ZeroMQ is used only if setting `USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1` during compilation.
> In default, it is 0.
>
> The source codes are close to the following:
>
> #if MXNET_U
Sure. As I noted "optional at compile-time", and it certainly looks that
way.
We just don't want to force downstream users to get adversely-licensed
products just to build our software. And MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE meets that
requirement.
Cheers,
-g
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Dominic Divaka
Ah all good then.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Mu Li wrote:
> ZeroMQ is used only if setting `USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1` during compilation.
> In default, it is 0.
>
> The source codes are close to the following:
>
> #if MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
> #include "zmq.h"
> #endif // MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
ZeroMQ is used only if setting `USE_DIST_KVSTORE = 1` during compilation.
In default, it is 0.
The source codes are close to the following:
#if MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
#include "zmq.h"
#endif // MXNET_USE_DIST_KVSTORE
Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar library is straightforward, but it is
mark
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 wrote:
> I think the header is required at compile time but zeromq is optional at
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 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 al
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 zeromq because of
> #includ
Isn't the release binaries going to contain bits from zeromq because of
#include 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 wrote:
> Mu,
>
> So what happens when ZeroMQ is not available, do you fall back to something
> e
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 lev
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
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
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 wrote:
> One of the items that is on the list to d
It's optional for MXNet to use ZeroMQ. Even if it is enabled, the source
codes of MXNet will not contain any codes from ZeroMQ except for
"include" and calling zeromq's APIs. But if we want to ship the
binary, it will link against libzeromq.a
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
Hen,
Can you give some more info about how MXnet uses ZeroMQ? Is it an optional
dependency or required? Are you actually bundling ZeroMQ in your release
(source or binary)?
John
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:23 AM Henri Yandell wrote:
> One of the items that is on the list to do before releasing
I think that the goals are really quite different.
But I don't know about Artemis very much.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Chris Mattmann wrote:
> Hi Hen,
>
> Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell" wrote
Hi Hen,
Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?
Cheers,
Chris
On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell" 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 unde
Greg Stein wrote on 7/6/17 4:01 AM:
> 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
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 exceptions to licensing
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, thoug
18 matches
Mail list logo
