You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> on 2017/07/06 06:23:45 UTC
ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
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
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Greg Stein wrote on 7/6/17 4:01 AM:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> 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
> issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.
I'm not cozy either. And you've confirmed crystal-clear that the
exception is clearly valid in this use case and that users won't somehow
believe (or need to act) as if the reciprocal clauses in the Zero*
software would apply to the podling's release?
>
> Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
> itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
> towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?
>
>
>> Any concerns before I do so?
>>
>
> I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
> provided.
Agreed. Including LGPL code in any Apache product release is not a good
idea immaterial of any explicit exceptions. Merely because the
exception may technically make it legally compliant is not the point;
end-users will be surprised to see anything *GPL* in Apache products.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Greg Stein wrote on 7/6/17 4:01 AM:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> 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
> issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.
I'm not cozy either. And you've confirmed crystal-clear that the
exception is clearly valid in this use case and that users won't somehow
believe (or need to act) as if the reciprocal clauses in the Zero*
software would apply to the podling's release?
>
> Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
> itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
> towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?
>
>
>> Any concerns before I do so?
>>
>
> I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
> provided.
Agreed. Including LGPL code in any Apache product release is not a good
idea immaterial of any explicit exceptions. Merely because the
exception may technically make it legally compliant is not the point;
end-users will be surprised to see anything *GPL* in Apache products.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> 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
issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.
Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?
> Any concerns before I do so?
>
I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
provided.
Cheers,
-g
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org>.
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 <fe...@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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> > luckbr1975@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 <
> bayard@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@apache.org>.
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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> luckbr1975@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 <ba...@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/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
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 Divakaruni <
dominic.divakaruni@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <mu...@gmail.com> 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
>>
>> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar 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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
>> > luckbr1975@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 <
>> bayard@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/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dominic Divakaruni
> 206.475.9200 <(206)%20475-9200> Cell
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
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 Divakaruni <
dominic.divakaruni@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <mu...@gmail.com> 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
>>
>> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar 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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
>> > luckbr1975@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 <
>> bayard@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/
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dominic Divakaruni
> 206.475.9200 <(206)%20475-9200> Cell
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Dominic Divakaruni <do...@gmail.com>.
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 <mu...@gmail.com> 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
>
> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar 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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> > luckbr1975@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 <
> bayard@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Dominic Divakaruni
206.475.9200 Cell
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@apache.org>.
Ah all good then.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 9:38 AM Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com> 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
>
> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar 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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> > luckbr1975@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 <
> bayard@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Dominic Divakaruni <do...@gmail.com>.
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 <mu...@gmail.com> 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
>
> Replacing ZeroMQ by another similar 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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> > luckbr1975@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 <
> bayard@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/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Dominic Divakaruni
206.475.9200 Cell
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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
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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> luckbr1975@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 <ba...@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/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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
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 <gs...@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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <
> luckbr1975@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 <ba...@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/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <luckbr1975@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 <ba...@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/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
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 <fe...@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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <luckbr1975@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 <ba...@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/
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@apache.org>.
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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@apache.org>.
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 <jo...@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 <mu...@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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
> > >
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <mu...@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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <mu...@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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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 <lu...@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 <ba...@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/
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
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 <ba...@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/
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
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 <ba...@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/
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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<zmq.h>" 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <ba...@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
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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<zmq.h>" 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 <jo...@apache.org> 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 <ba...@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
> >
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <ba...@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
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@apache.org> 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" <ba...@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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@apache.org> 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" <ba...@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
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Hen,
Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?
Cheers,
Chris
On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell" <ba...@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
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi Hen,
Why not explore the use of Apache Artemis as an alternative?
Cheers,
Chris
On 7/5/17, 11:23 PM, "Henri Yandell" <ba...@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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org> 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
issues. Forward progress mitigates that a bit.
Are there other libraries that could be used, should ZeroMQ *not* get
itself relicensed? In other words, could there be a simultaneous move
towards two options: new library, or a relicensed zeromq?
> Any concerns before I do so?
>
I'd say: no graduation, until solved, regardless of whether an exception is
provided.
Cheers,
-g
Re: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
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 <ba...@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
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Awesome - Rcpp11 is MIT license.
>
> Would Rcpp be up for relicensing
Personally, I don't think Rcpp will be relicensed.
> or would Rcpp11 be have in the roadmap required features to match Rcpp?
>
I don't know their plan. However, from their github page (
https://github.com/Rcpp11/Rcpp11), the development is not active now.
Best,
KK
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
Awesome - Rcpp11 is MIT license.
Would Rcpp be up for relicensing or would Rcpp11 be have in the roadmap required features to match Rcpp?
Actually, would you need help for Rcpp11? :)
_____________________________
From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
To: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>>
Hi, I am also in the Rcpp core team.
Rcpp11 is a reimplementation of Rcpp using C++ 11 features. However, it
lacks some features we used in MXNet R pacakge.
Best,
KK
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
> On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3
> licensed.
>
> I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
>
> _____________________________
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:23 PM
> Subject: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
> Cc: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Hi, I am also in the Rcpp core team.
Rcpp11 is a reimplementation of Rcpp using C++ 11 features. However, it
lacks some features we used in MXNet R pacakge.
Best,
KK
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3
> licensed.
>
> I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
>
> _____________________________
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:23 PM
> Subject: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
> Cc: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi Steffen,
We had a similar discussion with a legal team in Amazon, and we made this
PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12559 to fix the
licensing issues in the R-package.
I think the R-package should be good to include in the release, but we
should try to get a confirmation once again before we do include it.
Thanks
Anirudh
On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:22 PM Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi KK - I'm going through the release checklist
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-Step1.10.Createartefactsforthereleaseandpushtothedistfolder
> >
> for upcoming v1.4.x release and found the note to remove R-package before
> creating release artifacts. Did we ever get resolution from legal and can
> now include the R-package in the release?
> Appreciate your advice.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Naveen,
> >
> > I am totally fine if we skip the R pkg for release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > KK
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ly,
> > > Can we skip R pkg for the proposed release as KK mentioned and add
> > > it/alter based on the advice we get from ASF legal?
> > >
> > > ---KK Says---
> > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version
> of
> > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
> > > ---
> > >
> > > others,
> > > thoughts/concerns?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Naveen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey KK,
> > > >
> > > > I know we're planning a release end of this week/beginning of next
> > week.
> > > It
> > > > may be critical to get this cleared if it is an issue. Eager to hear
> > > back.
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, Ly,
> > > > >
> > > > > I will let you know when I have the answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > KK
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is
> a
> > > > > solution
> > > > > > for our next release?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you for the info.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new
> > > > version
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a
> > > > .gitattribute.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being
> > built
> > > > and
> > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > not part of the binaries release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are two parts to it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output
> > is
> > > > > > packaged
> > > > > > > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish
> > to
> > > > > CRAN.
> > > > > > > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then
> > build
> > > > > cross
> > > > > > > > platform from that source - but again the part with
> > > > > string_hash_code.c
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > disabled.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source
> > but
> > > > we
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the
> > > > future..
> > > > > > (ie.
> > > > > > > > building cross platform)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou@umail.iu.edu
> >>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Really thank you for the info.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R
> > package?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > KK
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Re this
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h",
> which
> > > are
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it
> is
> > > not
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark
> release
> > > we
> > > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org<mailto:baya
> > > rd@apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> > dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > > > > > > apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or
> > legal-discuss@
> > > .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional
> > > > features,
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain
> and
> > > > > install
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > non-included work."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h",
> > which
> > > > are
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF
> > > > project
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for
> > > > standard
> > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level
> > of
> > > > > > > quality."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project
> > > cannot
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such
> > required
> > > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if
> > > there
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou
> > > @umail.iu.edu
> > > > > > > ><mailto:
> > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding
> > > between
> > > > > us.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package,
> > but
> > > we
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like
> https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code
> from
> > > Rcpp
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package
> > > description (
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > > > > > > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header
> files
> > > from
> > > > > > Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in
> > other
> > > > > > > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the
> > > > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with
> C++
> > > have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (
> > > https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com
> ><
> > > > > > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R
> > > package,
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that
> > > > supports
> > > > > > > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Steffen Rochel <st...@gmail.com>.
Hi KK - I'm going through the release checklist
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-Step1.10.Createartefactsforthereleaseandpushtothedistfolder>
for upcoming v1.4.x release and found the note to remove R-package before
creating release artifacts. Did we ever get resolution from legal and can
now include the R-package in the release?
Appreciate your advice.
Regards,
Steffen
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Hi, Naveen,
>
> I am totally fine if we skip the R pkg for release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> KK
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ly,
> > Can we skip R pkg for the proposed release as KK mentioned and add
> > it/alter based on the advice we get from ASF legal?
> >
> > ---KK Says---
> > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
> > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
> > ---
> >
> > others,
> > thoughts/concerns?
> >
> > Thanks, Naveen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey KK,
> > >
> > > I know we're planning a release end of this week/beginning of next
> week.
> > It
> > > may be critical to get this cleared if it is an issue. Eager to hear
> > back.
> > > :)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi, Ly,
> > > >
> > > > I will let you know when I have the answer.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > KK
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a
> > > > solution
> > > > > for our next release?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you for the info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new
> > > version
> > > > of
> > > > > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a
> > > .gitattribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being
> built
> > > and
> > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > not part of the binaries release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are two parts to it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output
> is
> > > > > packaged
> > > > > > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish
> to
> > > > CRAN.
> > > > > > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then
> build
> > > > cross
> > > > > > > platform from that source - but again the part with
> > > > string_hash_code.c
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > disabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source
> but
> > > we
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the
> > > future..
> > > > > (ie.
> > > > > > > building cross platform)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really thank you for the info.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R
> package?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > KK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re this
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which
> > are
> > > > both
> > > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is
> > not
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release
> > we
> > > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org<mailto:baya
> > rd@apache.org
> > > >>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:
> dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > > > > > apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or
> legal-discuss@
> > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional
> > > features,
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and
> > > > install
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > non-included work."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions
> on
> > > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h",
> which
> > > are
> > > > > both
> > > > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF
> > > project
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for
> > > standard
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level
> of
> > > > > > quality."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project
> > cannot
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such
> required
> > > > > > component
> > > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if
> > there
> > > > are
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou
> > @umail.iu.edu
> > > > > > ><mailto:
> > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding
> > between
> > > > us.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package,
> but
> > we
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from
> > Rcpp
> > > > and
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package
> > description (
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > > > > > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files
> > from
> > > > > Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in
> other
> > > > > > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the
> > > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++
> > have
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (
> > https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R
> > package,
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that
> > > supports
> > > > > > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > > >
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Hi, Naveen,
I am totally fine if we skip the R pkg for release.
Thanks,
KK
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ly,
> Can we skip R pkg for the proposed release as KK mentioned and add
> it/alter based on the advice we get from ASF legal?
>
> ---KK Says---
> As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
> MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
> ---
>
> others,
> thoughts/concerns?
>
> Thanks, Naveen
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey KK,
> >
> > I know we're planning a release end of this week/beginning of next week.
> It
> > may be critical to get this cleared if it is an issue. Eager to hear
> back.
> > :)
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Ly,
> > >
> > > I will let you know when I have the answer.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > KK
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a
> > > solution
> > > > for our next release?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you for the info.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new
> > version
> > > of
> > > > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a
> > .gitattribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > KK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built
> > and
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > not part of the binaries release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are two parts to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is
> > > > packaged
> > > > > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to
> > > CRAN.
> > > > > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build
> > > cross
> > > > > > platform from that source - but again the part with
> > > string_hash_code.c
> > > > is
> > > > > > disabled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but
> > we
> > > > are
> > > > > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the
> > future..
> > > > (ie.
> > > > > > building cross platform)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really thank you for the info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KK
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re this
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which
> are
> > > both
> > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is
> not
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release
> we
> > > > > haven't
> > > > > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org<mailto:baya
> rd@apache.org
> > >>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > > > > apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@
> .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > <mailto:
> > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional
> > features,
> > > a
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and
> > > install
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > non-included work."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on
> > how
> > > to
> > > > > > > install
> > > > > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which
> > are
> > > > both
> > > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF
> > project
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for
> > standard
> > > > use
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of
> > > > > quality."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project
> cannot
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such required
> > > > > component
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if
> there
> > > are
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou
> @umail.iu.edu
> > > > > ><mailto:
> > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding
> between
> > > us.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but
> we
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from
> Rcpp
> > > and
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package
> description (
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > > > > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files
> from
> > > > Rcpp.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the
> > > DESCRIPTION
> > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++
> have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (
> https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R
> package,
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that
> > supports
> > > > > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qiang Kou
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > >
> >
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
Ly,
Can we skip R pkg for the proposed release as KK mentioned and add
it/alter based on the advice we get from ASF legal?
---KK Says---
As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
---
others,
thoughts/concerns?
Thanks, Naveen
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey KK,
>
> I know we're planning a release end of this week/beginning of next week. It
> may be critical to get this cleared if it is an issue. Eager to hear back.
> :)
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Ly,
> >
> > I will let you know when I have the answer.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > KK
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a
> > solution
> > > for our next release?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for the info.
> > > >
> > > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new
> version
> > of
> > > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a
> .gitattribute.
> > > >
> > > > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> > > >
> > > > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > KK
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built
> and
> > > > it's
> > > > > not part of the binaries release.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are two parts to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is
> > > packaged
> > > > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to
> > CRAN.
> > > > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build
> > cross
> > > > > platform from that source - but again the part with
> > string_hash_code.c
> > > is
> > > > > disabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but
> we
> > > are
> > > > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the
> future..
> > > (ie.
> > > > > building cross platform)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > incubator.apache.org
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Really thank you for the info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
> > > > >
> > > > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >
> > > > > KK
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Re this
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are
> > both
> > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we
> > > > haven't
> > > > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org<mailto:bayard@apache.org
> >>
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > > > apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > <mailto:
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional
> features,
> > a
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and
> > install
> > > > the
> > > > > > > non-included work."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on
> how
> > to
> > > > > > install
> > > > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which
> are
> > > both
> > > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > > (
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF
> project
> > > is
> > > > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for
> standard
> > > use
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of
> > > > quality."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot
> > > > function
> > > > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such required
> > > > component
> > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there
> > are
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > ><mailto:
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between
> > us.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we
> > > only
> > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp
> > and
> > > > > there
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > > > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > > > ).
> > > > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from
> > > Rcpp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the
> > DESCRIPTION
> > > > > file.
> > > > > > "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have
> > > been
> > > > > > > released
> > > > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package,
> > is
> > > > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that
> supports
> > > > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>.
Hey KK,
I know we're planning a release end of this week/beginning of next week. It
may be critical to get this cleared if it is an issue. Eager to hear back.
:)
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Hi, Ly,
>
> I will let you know when I have the answer.
>
> Best,
>
> KK
>
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a
> solution
> > for our next release?
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you for the info.
> > >
> > > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version
> of
> > > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
> > >
> > > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> > >
> > > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > KK
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <
> felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built and
> > > it's
> > > > not part of the binaries release.
> > > >
> > > > There are two parts to it.
> > > >
> > > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is
> > packaged
> > > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > > >
> > > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to
> CRAN.
> > > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build
> cross
> > > > platform from that source - but again the part with
> string_hash_code.c
> > is
> > > > disabled.
> > > >
> > > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but we
> > are
> > > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the future..
> > (ie.
> > > > building cross platform)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________
> > > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > incubator.apache.org
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really thank you for the info.
> > > >
> > > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
> > > >
> > > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > KK
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Re this
> > > > >
> > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are
> both
> > > > LGPL
> > > > > (
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > ).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not
> in
> > > the
> > > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we
> > > haven't
> > > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > > >
> > > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > > apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > >
> > > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > <mailto:
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features,
> a
> > > > > project
> > > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and
> install
> > > the
> > > > > > non-included work."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how
> to
> > > > > install
> > > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are
> > both
> > > > > LGPL
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project
> > is
> > > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard
> > use
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of
> > > quality."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot
> > > function
> > > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such required
> > > component
> > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there
> are
> > > more
> > > > > > > questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > ><mailto:
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between
> us.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we
> > only
> > > > > > include
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp
> and
> > > > there
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > > ).
> > > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from
> > Rcpp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the
> DESCRIPTION
> > > > file.
> > > > > "
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have
> > been
> > > > > > released
> > > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package,
> is
> > > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports
> > > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qiang Kou
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Hi, Ly,
I will let you know when I have the answer.
Best,
KK
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a solution
> for our next release?
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for the info.
> >
> > As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
> > MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
> >
> > I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
> >
> > Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > KK
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built and
> > it's
> > > not part of the binaries release.
> > >
> > > There are two parts to it.
> > >
> > > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is
> packaged
> > > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> > >
> > > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to CRAN.
> > > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build cross
> > > platform from that source - but again the part with string_hash_code.c
> is
> > > disabled.
> > >
> > > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but we
> are
> > > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the future..
> (ie.
> > > building cross platform)
> > >
> > >
> > > _____________________________
> > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > incubator.apache.org
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Really thank you for the info.
> > >
> > > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
> > >
> > > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > KK
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <
> felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Re this
> > > >
> > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> > > LGPL
> > > > (
> > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in
> > the
> > > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we
> > haven't
> > > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > > >
> > > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.
> > apache.org
> > > >
> > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > >
> > > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu
> <mailto:
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > > >
> > > > > From the link you provided,
> > > > >
> > > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a
> > > > project
> > > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install
> > the
> > > > > non-included work."
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to
> > > > install
> > > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > > >
> > > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are
> both
> > > > LGPL
> > > > > (
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > > ).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project
> is
> > > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard
> use
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of
> > quality."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot
> > function
> > > > > > without a component, then it is required and such required
> > component
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are
> > more
> > > > > > questions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > ><mailto:
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we
> only
> > > > > include
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and
> > > there
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> > DESCRIPTION#L32
> > > ).
> > > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from
> Rcpp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION
> > > file.
> > > > "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have
> been
> > > > > released
> > > > > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports
> > > R<->C++.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qiang Kou
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Ly Nguyen <ng...@gmail.com>.
Hi @KK, any updates from legal on whether excluding the R pkg is a solution
for our next release?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Thank you for the info.
>
> As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
> MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
>
> I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
>
> Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
>
> Best,
>
> KK
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built and
> it's
> > not part of the binaries release.
> >
> > There are two parts to it.
> >
> > For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is packaged
> > along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
> >
> > There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to CRAN.
> > This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build cross
> > platform from that source - but again the part with string_hash_code.c is
> > disabled.
> >
> > I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but we are
> > secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the future.. (ie.
> > building cross platform)
> >
> >
> > _____________________________
> > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Really thank you for the info.
> >
> > Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
> >
> > The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > KK
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Re this
> > >
> > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> > LGPL
> > > (
> > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > ).
> > >
> > > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in
> the
> > > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we
> haven't
> > > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> > >
> > > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> > > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.
> apache.org
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > >
> > > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > > >
> > > > From the link you provided,
> > > >
> > > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a
> > > project
> > > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install
> the
> > > > non-included work."
> > > >
> > > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to
> > > install
> > > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > > >
> > > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > > >
> > > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> > > LGPL
> > > > (
> > > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > > ).
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > >
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > > >
> > > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of
> quality."
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot
> function
> > > > > without a component, then it is required and such required
> component
> > > > cannot
> > > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are
> more
> > > > > questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > _____________________________
> > > > > From: Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:qkou@umail.iu.edu
> ><mailto:
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > > >
> > > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> > > > include
> > > > > the
> > > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > > >
> > > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and
> > there
> > > > is
> > > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > > >
> > > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/
> DESCRIPTION#L32
> > ).
> > > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> > > > >
> > > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION
> > file.
> > > "
> > > > >
> > > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > > >
> > > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> > > > released
> > > > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > > licensed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports
> > R<->C++.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Thank you for the info.
As I understand, if we skip the R pkg when releasing the a new version of
MXNet, everything is OK. This is can be done by adding a .gitattribute.
I will ask on legal-discuss@ for more info and confirmation.
Really thank you for all the info! It is super helpful.
Best,
KK
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built and it's
> not part of the binaries release.
>
> There are two parts to it.
>
> For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is packaged
> along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
>
> There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to CRAN.
> This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build cross
> platform from that source - but again the part with string_hash_code.c is
> disabled.
>
> I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but we are
> secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the future.. (ie.
> building cross platform)
>
>
> _____________________________
> From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
> Really thank you for the info.
>
> Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
>
> The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> KK
>
> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Re this
> >
> > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> LGPL
> > (
> > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > ).
> >
> > This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in the
> > release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we haven't
> > figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
> >
> > (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >
> > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> >
> > We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qkou@umail.iu.edu<mailto:
> qkou@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > > Really thank you for the clearance.
> > >
> > > From the link you provided,
> > >
> > > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a
> > project
> > > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> > > non-included work."
> > >
> > > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to
> > install
> > > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> > >
> > > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> > >
> > > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> > LGPL
> > > (
> > > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > > ).
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Qiang Kou
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <
> felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > > >
> > > > You can find more out this here
> > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, quote:
> > > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use
> of
> > > the
> > > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
> > > >
> > > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> > > > without a component, then it is required and such required component
> > > cannot
> > > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > >
> > > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> > > > questions.
> > > >
> > > > _____________________________
> > > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu><mailto:
> qkou@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi, Felix,
> > > >
> > > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> > > >
> > > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> > > include
> > > > the
> > > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > > >
> > > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and
> there
> > > is
> > > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > > >
> > > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32
> ).
> > > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> > > >
> > > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION
> file.
> > "
> > > >
> > > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > > >
> > > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> > > released
> > > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Qiang Kou
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> > felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > > licensed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports
> R<->C++.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qiang Kou
> > > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
>
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
I was only referring to string_hash_code.c - it's not being built and it's not part of the binaries release.
There are two parts to it.
For Spark binaries release, R package is built and the output is packaged along with the rest of all jars and python stuff.
There is also a source-only R package that we want to publish to CRAN. This contains only R source (no java stuff). CRAN will then build cross platform from that source - but again the part with string_hash_code.c is disabled.
I guess we should have removed string_hash_code.c from source but we are secretly hoping we could sort that out at some point in the future.. (ie. building cross platform)
_____________________________
From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
To: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>>
Really thank you for the info.
Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
Best wishes,
KK
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
> Re this
>
> The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL
> (
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> ).
>
> This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in the
> release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we haven't
> figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
>
> (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<ma...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
>
> We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>> wrote:
>
> > Really thank you for the clearance.
> >
> > From the link you provided,
> >
> > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a
> project
> > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> > non-included work."
> >
> > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to
> install
> > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> >
> > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> >
> > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> LGPL
> > (
> > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > ).
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Qiang Kou
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > >
> > > You can find more out this here
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > >
> > > Specifically, quote:
> > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of
> > the
> > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
> > >
> > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> > > without a component, then it is required and such required component
> > cannot
> > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > >
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > >
> > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > _____________________________
> > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > To: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org><mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > incubator.apache.org<http://incubator.apache.org>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Felix,
> > >
> > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> > >
> > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> > include
> > > the
> > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > >
> > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there
> > is
> > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > >
> > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
> > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> > >
> > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file.
> "
> > >
> > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > >
> > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> > released
> > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Qiang Kou
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<ma...@hotmail.com><
> > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > licensed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu<ma...@umail.iu.edu>
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Really thank you for the info.
Can you tell us a little more on how Spark handles the R package?
The building of R package is skipped when releasing, right?
Best wishes,
KK
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Re this
>
> The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL
> (
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> ).
>
> This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in the
> release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we haven't
> figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
>
> (I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
>
> We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Really thank you for the clearance.
> >
> > From the link you provided,
> >
> > "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a
> project
> > can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> > non-included work."
> >
> > I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to
> install
> > GNU R and the Rcpp package.
> >
> > Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
> >
> > The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both
> LGPL
> > (
> > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> > native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> > ).
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Qiang Kou
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> > >
> > > You can find more out this here
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> > >
> > > Specifically, quote:
> > > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of
> > the
> > > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
> > >
> > > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> > > without a component, then it is required and such required component
> > cannot
> > > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> > >
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > >
> > > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> > > questions.
> > >
> > > _____________________________
> > > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> > incubator.apache.org
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, Felix,
> > >
> > > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> > >
> > > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> > include
> > > the
> > > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> > >
> > > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there
> > is
> > > no linking against Rcpp.
> > >
> > > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
> > > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> > >
> > > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > > packages needs to declare them as a
> > > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file.
> "
> > >
> > > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > > html#Package-Dependencies).
> > >
> > > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> > released
> > > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Qiang Kou
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <
> felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > > licensed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Qiang Kou
> > qkou@umail.iu.edu
> > School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
> >
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
Re this
The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL (
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
).
This is actually disabled - it is not getting built and it is not in the release - because the way SparkR is packaged in Spark release we haven't figured out how to release cross multiple platforms.
(I'm one of the main contributor to SparkR)
________________________________
From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:02:16 AM
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Really thank you for the clearance.
>
> From the link you provided,
>
> "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a project
> can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> non-included work."
>
> I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to install
> GNU R and the Rcpp package.
>
> Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
>
> The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL
> (
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> ).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Qiang Kou
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> >
> > You can find more out this here
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> >
> > Specifically, quote:
> > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of
> the
> > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
> >
> > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> > without a component, then it is required and such required component
> cannot
> > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> >
> > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> > questions.
> >
> > _____________________________
> > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Hi, Felix,
> >
> > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> >
> > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> include
> > the
> > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> >
> > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there
> is
> > no linking against Rcpp.
> >
> > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
> > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> >
> > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > packages needs to declare them as a
> > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file. "
> >
> > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > html#Package-Dependencies).
> >
> > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> released
> > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Qiang Kou
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > licensed.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
> > >
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
We should bring this up on general@incubator or legal-discuss@.
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Really thank you for the clearance.
>
> From the link you provided,
>
> "However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a project
> can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> non-included work."
>
> I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to install
> GNU R and the Rcpp package.
>
> Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
>
> The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL
> (
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-
> native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
> ).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Qiang Kou
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> > different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
> >
> > You can find more out this here
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> >
> > Specifically, quote:
> > "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of
> the
> > product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
> >
> > Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> > without a component, then it is required and such required component
> cannot
> > be one of the prohibited licenses.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> >
> > Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> > questions.
> >
> > _____________________________
> > From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> > To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.
> incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Hi, Felix,
> >
> > I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
> >
> > (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only
> include
> > the
> > header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> > blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
> >
> > The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there
> is
> > no linking against Rcpp.
> >
> > (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> > https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
> > However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
> >
> > "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> > packages needs to declare them as a
> > comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file. "
> >
> > More details can be found from R's official manual (
> > https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> > html#Package-Dependencies).
> >
> > (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been
> released
> > under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> > feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Qiang Kou
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> > mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> > GPLv2/GPLv3
> > > licensed.
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
> > >
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Qiang Kou
> qkou@umail.iu.edu
> School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Really thank you for the clearance.
From the link you provided,
"However, if the component is only needed for optional features, a project
can provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
non-included work."
I think this is exactly our case. We provide instructions on how to install
GNU R and the Rcpp package.
Besides, our case is very similar with Spark.
The Spark R package includes "R.h" and "Rinternals.h", which are both LGPL (
https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/R/pkg/src-native/string_hash_code.c#L24-L25
).
Best wishes,
Qiang Kou
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is
> different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
>
> You can find more out this here
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>
> Specifically, quote:
> "Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of the
> product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
>
> Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function
> without a component, then it is required and such required component cannot
> be one of the prohibited licenses.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>
> Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more
> questions.
>
> _____________________________
> From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
> Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
> To: <dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> >>
>
>
> Hi, Felix,
>
> I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
>
> (1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only include
> the
> header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
> blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
>
> The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there is
> no linking against Rcpp.
>
> (2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
> https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
> However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
>
> "A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
> packages needs to declare them as a
> comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file. "
>
> More details can be found from R's official manual (
> https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
> html#Package-Dependencies).
>
> (3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been released
> under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
> feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
>
> Best,
>
> Qiang Kou
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <felixcheung_m@hotmail.com<
> mailto:felixcheung_m@hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is
> GPLv2/GPLv3
> > licensed.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
> >
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> > https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Qiang Kou
qkou@umail.iu.edu
School of Informatics and Computing, Indiana University
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
I'm not the authority on this but a release from an ASF project is different from releasing with the Apache 2.0 license.
You can find more out this here
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
Specifically, quote:
"Optional means that the component is not required for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a desirable level of quality."
Basically my interpretation is that if an ASF project cannot function without a component, then it is required and such required component cannot be one of the prohibited licenses.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
Probably a good idea to start a thread with legal@ if there are more questions.
_____________________________
From: Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
To: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>>
Hi, Felix,
I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
(1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only include
the
header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there is
no linking against Rcpp.
(2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
"A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
packages needs to declare them as a
comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file. "
More details can be found from R's official manual (
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
html#Package-Dependencies).
(3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been released
under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
Best,
Qiang Kou
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
> On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3
> licensed.
>
> I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
>
>
Re: Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Qiang Kou <qk...@umail.iu.edu>.
Hi, Felix,
I just want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us.
(1) The MXNet R package heavily used the Rcpp package, but we only include
the
header file, Rcpp.h, like https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/
blob/master/R-package/src/base.h#L11
The MXNet R package doesn't contain any source code from Rcpp and there is
no linking against Rcpp.
(2) There is "LinkingTo: Rcpp" in the R package description (
https://github.com/dmlc/mxnet/blob/master/R-package/DESCRIPTION#L32).
However, this only means we want to use the header files from Rcpp.
"A package that wishes to make use of header files in other
packages needs to declare them as a
comma-separated list in the field ‘LinkingTo’ in the DESCRIPTION file. "
More details can be found from R's official manual (
https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.
html#Package-Dependencies).
(3) Many R packages who use Rcpp to communicate with C++ have been released
under Apache License, like feather (https://github.com/wesm/
feather/blob/master/R/DESCRIPTION).
Best,
Qiang Kou
On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:20 AM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3
> licensed.
>
> I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
>
>
Rcpp licensing in Apache MXNet
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
On a related note, Rcpp, used extensively in the R package, is GPLv2/GPLv3 licensed.
I'm not aware of any other R package available that supports R<->C++.
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rcpp/index.html
_____________________________
From: Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:23 PM
Subject: ZeroMQ licensing in Apache MXNet
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
Cc: <de...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org>>
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