Brilliant :)
On Thursday, March 17, 2016, Chip Senkbeil wrote:
> Just wanted to give a status update with this one. JeroMQ is down to just
> four contributors that have not responded. The current, active committers
> for JeroMQ have reverted the commits for one of the contributors here:
>
> http
Just wanted to give a status update with this one. JeroMQ is down to just
four contributors that have not responded. The current, active committers
for JeroMQ have reverted the commits for one of the contributors here:
https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/pull/333
So, progress is still being made on
+1
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Gino Bustelo wrote:
>
> @john The 0mq ecosystem is made up of many projects of different sizes and
> maturity. In the case of JeroMQ, the committers are showing an overwhelming
> momentum to transition to MPL. I don't see any reason for us to consider any
> ot
@john The 0mq ecosystem is made up of many projects of different sizes and
maturity. In the case of JeroMQ, the committers are showing an overwhelming
momentum to transition to MPL. I don't see any reason for us to consider any
other alternative at this juncture.
Gino B.
> On Mar 5, 2016, at
Having chatted around the 0mq community in the past; I've confidence in
their desire to move to MPL; and 26/32 committers is a great step forward.
You raise a good reservation though John - if you remove the blocker on the
usage side, it's easy for the licensing to remain as is.
I'm +1 for releas
Sorry, misread the revision I was looking at. The intent to move to MPL
was done on March 22 2014, 2 years ago this month, not December 2013.
John
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM John D. Ament wrote:
> I have some reservations with what you're proposing, and would like you to
> consult w/ legal
I have some reservations with what you're proposing, and would like you to
consult w/ legal-discuss on this first.
There's a difference between what Mynewt did and what you're proposing.
Specifically, this was a transitive dependency that they relied upon
indirectly, so its more of a call out for
Thanks @stian. I was trying to sell them on the bigger picture that being
able to consume 0MQ within Apache projects would increase their user base.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> I know software licensing can be a difficult thing to investigate, not
> to mention c
I know software licensing can be a difficult thing to investigate, not
to mention change!
So very well done for managing to influence another open source
project! Apache projects don't live in isolation, and participating
in the wider community is also an important aspect of open
development.
I
