You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@toree.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> on 2016/01/28 18:12:06 UTC
ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
I'm not certain where to best ask this question. Please let me know
if it would be better addressed elsewhere.
At the Apache Software Foundation we have an incubating project (named
Toree[1]) that has a dependency on Zeromq. LGPL is problematic for
us[2], probably for the same reasons that you are considering moving
to MPL[3].
What is the status and plans of your move to MPLv2?
- Sam Ruby
[1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ToriiProposal
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
[3] http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>.
@Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ for
communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of it's
roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose this
usecase.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Is nanomsg a viable alternative?
>
> http://nanomsg.org/
> http://nanomsg.org/documentation.html
> http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm not certain where to best ask this question. Please let me know
> > if it would be better addressed elsewhere.
> >
> > At the Apache Software Foundation we have an incubating project (named
> > Toree[1]) that has a dependency on Zeromq. LGPL is problematic for
> > us[2], probably for the same reasons that you are considering moving
> > to MPL[3].
> >
> > What is the status and plans of your move to MPLv2?
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ToriiProposal
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > [3] http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
>> And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
>
> There are no good alternatives. That is the protocol used natively by the
> Notebook. Picking anything else would mean requiring extending Jupyter and
> I would consider that last resort.
So it is possible.
>> Again, no alternatives?
>
> We've been treating the ZeroMQ protocol as the only way to communicate with
> the kernel from another process. There has been experiments were we embed
> part of Toree in other code, but that is more an example of using Toree as
> a library rather than a running process.
>
> Sam... please take a look at this clause (
> https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER#L169) on the
> library that we are using that is LGPL.
That has been looked at by the Legal Affairs Committee:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
More background:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com%3E
http://zeromq.org/area:licensing#toc2
- Sam Ruby
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
>> >>1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>> >>end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>> >
>> > Jupyter is a separate tool not included by Toree (jupyter.org). Toree
>> can
>> > get installed into Jupyter as what they call a kernel.
>>
>> And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
>>
>> I want to be thorough here.
>>
>> >>2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>> >>any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>> >
>> > There are other uses... but most would communicate with Toree through
>> > ZeroMQ.
>>
>> Again, no alternatives?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Backing up to explain where I'm going with this.
>>
>> Clearly the community that originally developed ZeroMQ intended to
>> license their work under what Apache would refer to as a "Category
>> 'B'" license. However, as they note on their licensing page, they
>> weren't as successful as they had hoped, finding that their license
>> terms have not proven to be easy for corporate lawyers to accept;
>> which is an explicit goal of the Apache Software Foundation Legal
>> Affairs committee.
>>
>> And they have now painted themselves into a corner as they neither
>> have copyright assignments, nor contributor license agreements, and
>> have lost contact with many of the original copyright holders.
>>
>> The next thing to explore is a platform exception. For those
>> interested, that's approximation 2 in
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html. Generally, that means
>> that you don't ship that component, but if is present in the
>> environment, you will make use of it.
>>
>> This case is a bit different. As I understand it, Toree doesn't
>> directly plug into Jypiter, it plugs into ZeroMQ, and ZeroMQ plugs
>> into Jypiter. We may need to explore approximation 3 in the link
>> above. A part of the discussion is whether or not there are any
>> alternatives, and how hard would it be for somebody who wanted to
>> avoid the use of ZeroMQ to remove that portion of the code, and how
>> useful would the code be if that were done.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ
>> for
>> >> > communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of
>> it's
>> >> > roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose
>> this
>> >> > usecase.
>> >>
>> >> Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>> >> end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>> >>
>> >> 2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>> >> any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>> >>
>> >> - Sam Ruby
>> >>
>>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>.
> And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
There are no good alternatives. That is the protocol used natively by the
Notebook. Picking anything else would mean requiring extending Jupyter and
I would consider that last resort.
> Again, no alternatives?
We've been treating the ZeroMQ protocol as the only way to communicate with
the kernel from another process. There has been experiments were we embed
part of Toree in other code, but that is more an example of using Toree as
a library rather than a running process.
Sam... please take a look at this clause (
https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/blob/master/COPYING.LESSER#L169) on the
library that we are using that is LGPL.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
> >>1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
> >>end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
> >
> > Jupyter is a separate tool not included by Toree (jupyter.org). Toree
> can
> > get installed into Jupyter as what they call a kernel.
>
> And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
>
> I want to be thorough here.
>
> >>2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
> >>any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
> >
> > There are other uses... but most would communicate with Toree through
> > ZeroMQ.
>
> Again, no alternatives?
>
> ---
>
> Backing up to explain where I'm going with this.
>
> Clearly the community that originally developed ZeroMQ intended to
> license their work under what Apache would refer to as a "Category
> 'B'" license. However, as they note on their licensing page, they
> weren't as successful as they had hoped, finding that their license
> terms have not proven to be easy for corporate lawyers to accept;
> which is an explicit goal of the Apache Software Foundation Legal
> Affairs committee.
>
> And they have now painted themselves into a corner as they neither
> have copyright assignments, nor contributor license agreements, and
> have lost contact with many of the original copyright holders.
>
> The next thing to explore is a platform exception. For those
> interested, that's approximation 2 in
> http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html. Generally, that means
> that you don't ship that component, but if is present in the
> environment, you will make use of it.
>
> This case is a bit different. As I understand it, Toree doesn't
> directly plug into Jypiter, it plugs into ZeroMQ, and ZeroMQ plugs
> into Jypiter. We may need to explore approximation 3 in the link
> above. A part of the discussion is whether or not there are any
> alternatives, and how hard would it be for somebody who wanted to
> avoid the use of ZeroMQ to remove that portion of the code, and how
> useful would the code be if that were done.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ
> for
> >> > communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of
> it's
> >> > roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose
> this
> >> > usecase.
> >>
> >> Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
> >>
> >> 1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
> >> end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
> >>
> >> 2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
> >> any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
> >>
> >> - Sam Ruby
> >>
>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Thankfully, it is not for me to evaluate any more. :-). But my read
> is that Jim wouldn't want the ASF to accept this uncertainty.
>
That's right.
Again, one of the criteria behind our "take" on license compatibility,
other than the strictly legal PoV, is that, from *our* stance, we want
usage, redistribution and consuming of code *from* the ASF to be
as brain-dead easy and non-controversial as possible. In other words,
we don't want people to have to question, "Hmmm, can I use this" when
considering ASF projects, and we esp. don't want them to have to get
legal involved as well to worry and consider if their usage is OK and
compliant.
As such, I really don't see how 0mq can be used licensed as it is.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Ralph Goers
<ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> Why not? As I read that license page the exception basically says “ignore
> the LGPL, whatever license you are using is what this library also uses”.
> Their exception seems to toss out sections 4 & 5 of the LGPL.
>
> As I read it you can modify the zeromq library and you are required to “pass
> along” the special exception - which means that it can be incorporated into
> a work under any license you want, which would presume that if the license
> prohibits distribution of the source then that is fine.
My experience is that companies with deep pockets are not going to
take the position that "Gee, the ASF found a loophole that relieves us
from the obligations of the original license, I guess we are good to
go then!". Your experience may be different.
And I'll note that that's not just my experience, the folks who
maintain ZeroMQ acknowledge that their license has proven to be
problematic for corporate lawyers to accept:
http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
Thankfully, it is not for me to evaluate any more. :-). But my read
is that Jim wouldn't want the ASF to accept this uncertainty.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> At the end of COPYING.LESSER there is this:
>
> Note: this exception relieves you of any obligations under sections 4 and 5 of this license, and section 6 of the GNU General Public License.
>
> What isn’t clear to me is what happens to section 2 of the LGPL. The fact that it clearly states that you can “copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice” means to me that whatever distribution requirements there might be under section 2 of the LGPL don’t apply.
>
> The way I read what is left of this license after the exclusion is that it is no worse than the Eclipse license.
As for LGPL, that's already in
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html as a Category X license. If
somebody braver than I wishes to reopen that can of worms, feel free.
As for me, I'll sit that one out. From my perspective, there is a
legitimate difference of opinion as to how LGPL can be interpreted,
and Jim's clear position is that in such case, we will take a
conservative position. I support Jim on this approach.
> Ralph
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
At the end of COPYING.LESSER there is this:
Note: this exception relieves you of any obligations under sections 4 and 5 of this license, and section 6 of the GNU General Public License.
What isn’t clear to me is what happens to section 2 of the LGPL. The fact that it clearly states that you can “copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice” means to me that whatever distribution requirements there might be under section 2 of the LGPL don’t apply.
The way I read what is left of this license after the exclusion is that it is no worse than the Eclipse license.
Ralph
> On Jan 30, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is anything about relicensing under the ZeroMQ [L]GPL licenses. (I don't see any MPL licenses on those GitHub pages and the actual steps to move to MPL are dependent on some matters that may not be under anyone's control).
>
> In my reading, ZeroMQ allows any containing application that is simply depending on the library to be under any license. That is also pretty clear in the addendum to the COPYING.LESSER file and in the README.md License section.
>
> Perhaps a better question is whether that provision on the ZeroMQ code is sufficient for it to qualify as a special Category B exception already.
>
> - Dennis
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com>]
>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 08:19
>> To: Legal Discuss <legal-discuss@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
>>
>> Why not? As I read that license page the exception basically says
>> “ignore the LGPL, whatever license you are using is what this library
>> also uses”. Their exception seems to toss out sections 4 & 5 of the
>> LGPL.
>>
>> As I read it you can modify the zeromq library and you are required to
>> “pass along” the special exception - which means that it can be
>> incorporated into a work under any license you want, which would presume
>> that if the license prohibits distribution of the source then that is
>> fine.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
>> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net <ma...@intertwingly.net>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ralph Goers
>> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com> <mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am curious, https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1 <https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1> seems to
>> indicate that if you use it from an Apache licensed “module” that the
>> zeromq library can then be considered to be under the Apache license. Am
>> I misreading this?
>>
>>
>>
>> ... which would enable a third party to make modifications and not
>> release them under the terms of the original license?
>>
>> I don't think that meets Jim's criteria:
>>
>> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal- <https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal->
>> discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-
>> 86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com <http://40jagunet.com/>%3E
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Ombredanne
>> <pombredanne@nexb.com <ma...@nexb.com> <mailto:pombredanne@nexb.com <ma...@nexb.com>> > wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby
>> <rubys@intertwingly.net <ma...@intertwingly.net> <mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net <ma...@intertwingly.net>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take
>> for the Toree
>> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or
>> to request a
>> limited exception. No action required yet, and
>> I'll bring the
>> discussion back here should it reach that point.
>> Meanwhile, I just
>> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is
>> going on, and
>> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sam:
>> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I
>> filed recently
>> with ZeroMQ.
>> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77 <https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77>
>> --
>> Cordially
>> Philippe Ombredanne
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> -------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-
>> unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-
>> help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> --------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-
>> help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> <mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> <mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
RE: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I don't think there is anything about relicensing under the ZeroMQ [L]GPL licenses. (I don't see any MPL licenses on those GitHub pages and the actual steps to move to MPL are dependent on some matters that may not be under anyone's control).
In my reading, ZeroMQ allows any containing application that is simply depending on the library to be under any license. That is also pretty clear in the addendum to the COPYING.LESSER file and in the README.md License section.
Perhaps a better question is whether that provision on the ZeroMQ code is sufficient for it to qualify as a special Category B exception already.
- Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.goers@dslextreme.com]
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 08:19
> To: Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
>
> Why not? As I read that license page the exception basically says
> “ignore the LGPL, whatever license you are using is what this library
> also uses”. Their exception seems to toss out sections 4 & 5 of the
> LGPL.
>
> As I read it you can modify the zeromq library and you are required to
> “pass along” the special exception - which means that it can be
> incorporated into a work under any license you want, which would presume
> that if the license prohibits distribution of the source then that is
> fine.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net
> <ma...@intertwingly.net> > wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ralph Goers
> <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com> > wrote:
>
>
> I am curious, https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1 seems to
> indicate that if you use it from an Apache licensed “module” that the
> zeromq library can then be considered to be under the Apache license. Am
> I misreading this?
>
>
>
> ... which would enable a third party to make modifications and not
> release them under the terms of the original license?
>
> I don't think that meets Jim's criteria:
>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
> discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-
> 86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com%3E
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Ombredanne
> <pombredanne@nexb.com <ma...@nexb.com> > wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby
> <rubys@intertwingly.net <ma...@intertwingly.net> > wrote:
>
>
> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take
> for the Toree
> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or
> to request a
> limited exception. No action required yet, and
> I'll bring the
> discussion back here should it reach that point.
> Meanwhile, I just
> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is
> going on, and
> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>
>
>
> Sam:
> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I
> filed recently
> with ZeroMQ.
> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-
> unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-
> help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-
> help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Why not? As I read that license page the exception basically says “ignore the LGPL, whatever license you are using is what this library also uses”. Their exception seems to toss out sections 4 & 5 of the LGPL.
As I read it you can modify the zeromq library and you are required to “pass along” the special exception - which means that it can be incorporated into a work under any license you want, which would presume that if the license prohibits distribution of the source then that is fine.
Ralph
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 5:55 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.goers@dslextreme.com <ma...@dslextreme.com>> wrote:
>> I am curious, https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1 <https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1> seems to indicate that if you use it from an Apache licensed “module” that the zeromq library can then be considered to be under the Apache license. Am I misreading this?
>
> ... which would enable a third party to make modifications and not
> release them under the terms of the original license?
>
> I don't think that meets Jim's criteria:
>
> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com%3E <https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com%3E>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>> Ralph
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>>> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
>>>> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
>>>> limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
>>>> discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
>>>> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
>>>> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>>>
>>> Sam:
>>> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I filed recently
>>> with ZeroMQ.
>>> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
>>> --
>>> Cordially
>>> Philippe Ombredanne
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I am curious, https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1 seems to indicate that if you use it from an Apache licensed “module” that the zeromq library can then be considered to be under the Apache license. Am I misreading this?
... which would enable a third party to make modifications and not
release them under the terms of the original license?
I don't think that meets Jim's criteria:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201507.mbox/%3C9B052E9F-E7A1-4B00-A5BF-86333BC477EF%40jaguNET.com%3E
- Sam Ruby
> Ralph
>
>> On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>>> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
>>> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
>>> limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
>>> discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
>>> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
>>> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>>
>> Sam:
>> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I filed recently
>> with ZeroMQ.
>> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
>> --
>> Cordially
>> Philippe Ombredanne
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
I am curious, https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1 seems to indicate that if you use it from an Apache licensed “module” that the zeromq library can then be considered to be under the Apache license. Am I misreading this?
Ralph
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
>> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
>> limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
>> discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
>> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
>> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>
> Sam:
> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I filed recently
> with ZeroMQ.
> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Storm faced a similar issue. They coded around it.
Does jupityr really have to use 0mq? Is there no other option?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 29, 2016, at 10:45, Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
>> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
>> limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
>> discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
>> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
>> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
>
> Sam:
> FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I filed recently
> with ZeroMQ.
> https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
> --
> Cordially
> Philippe Ombredanne
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Philippe Ombredanne <po...@nexb.com>.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
> podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
> limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
> discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
> wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
> welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
Sam:
FWIW, you can see this licensing-related ticket that I filed recently
with ZeroMQ.
https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq4-1/issues/77
--
Cordially
Philippe Ombredanne
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Fwd: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Just a heads up... I'm exploring what it would take for the Toree
podling to either find an alternative to ZeroMQ or to request a
limited exception. No action required yet, and I'll bring the
discussion back here should it reach that point. Meanwhile, I just
wanted to make people aware that this discussion is going on, and
welcome anybody who wishes to participate.
- Sam Ruby
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
To: dev@toree.incubator.apache.org
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
>>1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>>end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>
> Jupyter is a separate tool not included by Toree (jupyter.org). Toree can
> get installed into Jupyter as what they call a kernel.
And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
I want to be thorough here.
>>2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>>any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>
> There are other uses... but most would communicate with Toree through
> ZeroMQ.
Again, no alternatives?
---
Backing up to explain where I'm going with this.
Clearly the community that originally developed ZeroMQ intended to
license their work under what Apache would refer to as a "Category
'B'" license. However, as they note on their licensing page, they
weren't as successful as they had hoped, finding that their license
terms have not proven to be easy for corporate lawyers to accept;
which is an explicit goal of the Apache Software Foundation Legal
Affairs committee.
And they have now painted themselves into a corner as they neither
have copyright assignments, nor contributor license agreements, and
have lost contact with many of the original copyright holders.
The next thing to explore is a platform exception. For those
interested, that's approximation 2 in
http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html. Generally, that means
that you don't ship that component, but if is present in the
environment, you will make use of it.
This case is a bit different. As I understand it, Toree doesn't
directly plug into Jypiter, it plugs into ZeroMQ, and ZeroMQ plugs
into Jypiter. We may need to explore approximation 3 in the link
above. A part of the discussion is whether or not there are any
alternatives, and how hard would it be for somebody who wanted to
avoid the use of ZeroMQ to remove that portion of the code, and how
useful would the code be if that were done.
- Sam Ruby
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ for
>> > communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of it's
>> > roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose this
>> > usecase.
>>
>> Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
>>
>> 1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>> end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>>
>> 2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>> any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
>>1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>>end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>
> Jupyter is a separate tool not included by Toree (jupyter.org). Toree can
> get installed into Jupyter as what they call a kernel.
And "installing into Jupyter" requires ZeroMQ? There are no alternatives?
I want to be thorough here.
>>2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>>any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>
> There are other uses... but most would communicate with Toree through
> ZeroMQ.
Again, no alternatives?
---
Backing up to explain where I'm going with this.
Clearly the community that originally developed ZeroMQ intended to
license their work under what Apache would refer to as a "Category
'B'" license. However, as they note on their licensing page, they
weren't as successful as they had hoped, finding that their license
terms have not proven to be easy for corporate lawyers to accept;
which is an explicit goal of the Apache Software Foundation Legal
Affairs committee.
And they have now painted themselves into a corner as they neither
have copyright assignments, nor contributor license agreements, and
have lost contact with many of the original copyright holders.
The next thing to explore is a platform exception. For those
interested, that's approximation 2 in
http://www.apache.org/legal/ramblings.html. Generally, that means
that you don't ship that component, but if is present in the
environment, you will make use of it.
This case is a bit different. As I understand it, Toree doesn't
directly plug into Jypiter, it plugs into ZeroMQ, and ZeroMQ plugs
into Jypiter. We may need to explore approximation 3 in the link
above. A part of the discussion is whether or not there are any
alternatives, and how hard would it be for somebody who wanted to
avoid the use of ZeroMQ to remove that portion of the code, and how
useful would the code be if that were done.
- Sam Ruby
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ for
>> > communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of it's
>> > roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose this
>> > usecase.
>>
>> Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
>>
>> 1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>> end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>>
>> 2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>> any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>.
>1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
>end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
Jupyter is a separate tool not included by Toree (jupyter.org). Toree can
get installed into Jupyter as what they call a kernel.
>2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
>any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
There are other uses... but most would communicate with Toree through
ZeroMQ.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ for
> > communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of it's
> > roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose this
> > usecase.
>
> Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
>
> 1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
> end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
>
> 2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
> any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:59:47 -0600, Gino Bustelo <gi...@bustelos.com> wrote:
>
> @Sam Our need for ZeroMQ is due to Jupyter. Jupyter relies on ZeroMQ for
> communication between the Client and Server. In Toree's case, one of it's
> roles is as the Server to a Jupyter Notebook. We don't want to loose this
> usecase.
Some of these questions may sound odd, but please bear with me:
1) Does Toree intend to include Jupyter in its download, or would the
end user be expected to install Jupyter separately?
2) You used the phrase "one of it's roles". Would ZeroMQ be used for
any other use than as a server to Jupyter Notebook?
- Sam Ruby
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Chip Senkbeil <ch...@gmail.com>.
Looked at the ZeroMQ link. They state it is not fully compatible with
ZeroMQ, but is fully POSIX compliant. We'd have to dig into all ZeroMQ apis
used by Jupyter to make sure we supported everything.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 12:38 PM Chip Senkbeil <ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Trying to read through phone, but I noticed that it is implemented in C.
> We're using JeroMQ to avoid depending on a binary and JNI. If they don't
> have a Java API, I'd say no.
>
> Don't know if it is compatible with ZeroMQ, which we need to maintain
> support for Jupyter. Would need to take a deeper look.
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 12:16 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> Is nanomsg a viable alternative?
>>
>> http://nanomsg.org/
>> http://nanomsg.org/documentation.html
>> http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I'm not certain where to best ask this question. Please let me know
>> > if it would be better addressed elsewhere.
>> >
>> > At the Apache Software Foundation we have an incubating project (named
>> > Toree[1]) that has a dependency on Zeromq. LGPL is problematic for
>> > us[2], probably for the same reasons that you are considering moving
>> > to MPL[3].
>> >
>> > What is the status and plans of your move to MPLv2?
>> >
>> > - Sam Ruby
>> >
>> > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ToriiProposal
>> > [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>> > [3] http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
>>
>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Chip Senkbeil <ch...@gmail.com>.
Trying to read through phone, but I noticed that it is implemented in C.
We're using JeroMQ to avoid depending on a binary and JNI. If they don't
have a Java API, I'd say no.
Don't know if it is compatible with ZeroMQ, which we need to maintain
support for Jupyter. Would need to take a deeper look.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016, 12:16 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Is nanomsg a viable alternative?
>
> http://nanomsg.org/
> http://nanomsg.org/documentation.html
> http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm not certain where to best ask this question. Please let me know
> > if it would be better addressed elsewhere.
> >
> > At the Apache Software Foundation we have an incubating project (named
> > Toree[1]) that has a dependency on Zeromq. LGPL is problematic for
> > us[2], probably for the same reasons that you are considering moving
> > to MPL[3].
> >
> > What is the status and plans of your move to MPLv2?
> >
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ToriiProposal
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> > [3] http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
>
Re: ZeroMQ MPL Licensing plans?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Is nanomsg a viable alternative?
http://nanomsg.org/
http://nanomsg.org/documentation.html
http://nanomsg.org/documentation-zeromq.html
- Sam Ruby
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm not certain where to best ask this question. Please let me know
> if it would be better addressed elsewhere.
>
> At the Apache Software Foundation we have an incubating project (named
> Toree[1]) that has a dependency on Zeromq. LGPL is problematic for
> us[2], probably for the same reasons that you are considering moving
> to MPL[3].
>
> What is the status and plans of your move to MPLv2?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ToriiProposal
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> [3] http://zeromq.org/area:licensing