Licensing concerns about 0MQ protocol ?

[T.J. Yang]

Hi

Can someone explain why there is licensing concern about zeroMQ protocol ?

>Why make an alternative transport for Salt? There are many reasons, but the

>primary motivation came from customer requests, many large companies came with

>requests to run Salt over an alternative transport, the reasoning was varied,

>from performance and scaling improvements to licensing concerns. These

>customers have partnered with SaltStack to make RAET a reality.

R1: http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/topics/transports/raet/index.html

tj

[Stephen Spencer]

The LGPL scares the ignorant. Pieter Hitchens has written some very concise and clear pieces regarding their choice of that license.

-S

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Salt-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to salt-users+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[T.J. Yang]

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 8:45:17 AM UTC-6, Stephen Spencer wrote:

The LGPL scares the ignorant. Pieter Hitchens has written some very concise and clear pieces regarding their choice of that license.

Thanks for the pointer about 0MQ in LGPL license.

tj 

[C. R. Oldham]

Excerpts from Stephen Spencer's message of 2014-11-12 07:45:14 -0700:

> The LGPL scares the ignorant. Pieter Hitchens has written some very concise
> and clear pieces regarding their choice of that license.

And T. J. Yang replied:

> Thanks for the pointer about 0MQ in LGPL license

> <http://zeromq.org/area:licensing>.

Well, it also scares lawyers, as Pieter mentions at the bottom of that page.

--cro

[C. R. Oldham]

Excerpts from T.J. Yang's message of 2014-11-12 05:52:21 -0700:
[...]
> R1: http://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/topics/transports/raet/index.html
[...]

> Can someone explain why there is licensing concern about zeroMQ protocol ?

Good morning T. J.,

ZeroMQ is licensed under the LGPL. LGPL-licensed software explicitly allows
software under a different license to be linked to it without requiring that
software to share the license, so theoretically there should be no issue.
However, some of Salt's customers had concern about the LGPL nature of ZeroMQ,
and since ZeroMQ is a hard dependency, that was where the licensing issue came
from.

--
C. R. Oldham, Platform Engineer | c...@saltstack.com
SaltStack, Inc. | http://saltstack.com

[T.J. Yang]

Thanks C.R.

Looking at  http://zeromq.org/area:licensing page, 0MQ is planning to move to MPL V2 license from LGPL one.

[Loren Gordon]

Thanks for the clarification. I know Government regulations make it difficult for them to use products with some open source licenses, particularly when the license has stipulations requiring distribution of applications derived from the code or around disclosing source. LGPL seems like it should be fine, as such conditions are limited to the code licensed under LGPL and not the derived product, but it's all around easier if we can just avoid having that conversation with the contracting officer...

MPL has a similar source disclosure requirement, probably leading to similar issues with Govt usage...

-Loren