4 ms·

The library supports some very useful algorithms. Both supervised and unsupervised ones. But I can't use it for our commercial non GPL projects.

by JacobiX 13y ago

aeroevan 13y ago
If LGPL works for you, you may want to look into http://www.mlpack.org/ http://www.mlpack.org/ I'm not really sure how they compare since I haven't really used either library, but there does seem to be some overlap.
- JacobiX 13y ago
  Thanks, it's not as complete as Shark. But it is nonetheless very interesting.
mindcrime 13y ago
Could you have the ML part done as a standalone process and not actually linked into your other project code? That is, process some data "out of band" so to speak, and write it out to a file, which is then used by "your stuff"? Or communicate with the ML part over a socket? Either approach would let you use this code without requiring the other parts of your project to be licensed under the GPL. Just a thought...
- JacobiX 13y ago
  Yes I think It is possible to use the library as a standalone process. It will introduce some little overhead. More importantly the code will be harder to debug and maintain.
jhartmann 13y ago
Flame Suit On / Rant Mode On I actually really don't understand why anyone uses GPL for a library. I've been doing open source for a long long time, and love the GPL. I have code in the Linux kernel, and believe free software AND open source software are great solutions to very real problems in software engineering. Having open code just gives people more options, and I firmly believe it will win over time as far as quality is concerned. I just think only providing libraries to other GPL code is stupid. It just limits the usefulness of the software. LGPL is great here, you get the core changes contributed back to your library from a greater group of people and everyone wins. Limiting a library to GPL means a large population can not use your code, those writing applications that can't be licensed under the GPL. Limiting choice is BAD. The whole reason you should be creating and using free software and OSS is to not weld the hood shut. GPL should be for applications, LGPL just limits choices for libraries. Down with the GPL for libraries!!! Flame Suit Off / Rant Mode Off
- kruhft 13y ago
  Some people believe in software freedom more than you do.
  - forrestthewoods 13y ago
    Some people define "freedom" with 10 pages of restrictions of which the exact interpretation is continuously debated years after release. Other people consider that the opposite of freedom.
    - ddfu 13y ago
      Some wouldn't mind their open-source software integrated into high-frequency trading systems and military munitions, and others either object on moral terms or wish to be paid fairly for such lucrative use. Do you think programmers shouldn't have the choice to decide whether their software may be used to kill people or cause the next flash crash? GPLv3 allows programmers to share their software while making sure big corporations and defense contractors steer clear.
- to3m 13y ago
  LPGL isn't vastly better than the GPL as it makes it difficult to link statically and/or release for closed platforms. Its advocates would probably see these as plus points, but I'm not sure that they're going to increase uptake.
  - thwest 13y ago
    Difficult, but not really a significant part of the challenges for delivering closed source binaries across platforms. On linux, you have to build distribution specific binaries that match the shared library versions in the package manager. On Windows, you generally put all of your shared libraries in your application's folder, since there are plenty of bad actors who install DLLs without versions in the filename to system32. Leads to duplication on the system but its a generally accepted bad practice. (Can't speak to shipping LGPL libs on OS X).

The library supports some very useful algorithms. Both supervised and unsupervised ones. But I can't use it for our commercial non GPL projects.

by JacobiX 13y ago

The library supports some very useful algorithms. Both supervised and unsupervised ones. But I can't use it for our commercial non GPL projects.

aeroevan 13y ago

If LGPL works for you, you may want to look into http://www.mlpack.org/ http://www.mlpack.org/ I'm not really sure how they compare since I haven't really used either library, but there does seem to be some overlap.

JacobiX 13y ago
Thanks, it's not as complete as Shark. But it is nonetheless very interesting.

mindcrime 13y ago

Could you have the ML part done as a standalone process and not actually linked into your other project code? That is, process some data "out of band" so to speak, and write it out to a file, which is then used by "your stuff"? Or communicate with the ML part over a socket? Either approach would let you use this code without requiring the other parts of your project to be licensed under the GPL. Just a thought...

JacobiX 13y ago
Yes I think It is possible to use the library as a standalone process. It will introduce some little overhead. More importantly the code will be harder to debug and maintain.

jhartmann 13y ago

Flame Suit On / Rant Mode On I actually really don't understand why anyone uses GPL for a library. I've been doing open source for a long long time, and love the GPL. I have code in the Linux kernel, and believe free software AND open source software are great solutions to very real problems in software engineering. Having open code just gives people more options, and I firmly believe it will win over time as far as quality is concerned. I just think only providing libraries to other GPL code is stupid. It just limits the usefulness of the software. LGPL is great here, you get the core changes contributed back to your library from a greater group of people and everyone wins. Limiting a library to GPL means a large population can not use your code, those writing applications that can't be licensed under the GPL. Limiting choice is BAD. The whole reason you should be creating and using free software and OSS is to not weld the hood shut. GPL should be for applications, LGPL just limits choices for libraries. Down with the GPL for libraries!!! Flame Suit Off / Rant Mode Off

kruhft 13y ago
Some people believe in software freedom more than you do.
- forrestthewoods 13y ago
  Some people define "freedom" with 10 pages of restrictions of which the exact interpretation is continuously debated years after release. Other people consider that the opposite of freedom.
  - ddfu 13y ago
    Some wouldn't mind their open-source software integrated into high-frequency trading systems and military munitions, and others either object on moral terms or wish to be paid fairly for such lucrative use. Do you think programmers shouldn't have the choice to decide whether their software may be used to kill people or cause the next flash crash? GPLv3 allows programmers to share their software while making sure big corporations and defense contractors steer clear.
to3m 13y ago
LPGL isn't vastly better than the GPL as it makes it difficult to link statically and/or release for closed platforms. Its advocates would probably see these as plus points, but I'm not sure that they're going to increase uptake.
- thwest 13y ago
  Difficult, but not really a significant part of the challenges for delivering closed source binaries across platforms. On linux, you have to build distribution specific binaries that match the shared library versions in the package manager. On Windows, you generally put all of your shared libraries in your application's folder, since there are plenty of bad actors who install DLLs without versions in the filename to system32. Leads to duplication on the system but its a generally accepted bad practice. (Can't speak to shipping LGPL libs on OS X).