[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JMH dependency vs licensing

Yep, concur on these points. My understanding on them all.

On 8/10/18 12:33 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
That’s my understanding as well.

I thought we’d settled this a while ago. (I can’t find a URL to prove it.)


On Aug 10, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolivelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I think it is fine to use JMH, you are not "redistributing" it, it is here
only to run local benchmarks.

We have the same in Apache BookKeeper codebase

just my 2 cents


Il giorno ven 10 ago 2018 alle ore 16:56 Michael Mior <mmior@xxxxxxxxxx> ha

Perhaps we should just open up a JIRA case on legal for an official ruling.
It does seem like we should try to have ubenchmark excluded from releases.
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't belive it's required.

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 4:01 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <

There are two questions there:
1) Is it possible to use third party code with "forbidden" licenses?
As you say, the answer is "it is OK for optional modules".

2) What should be the license of `ubenchmark` module?
It looks like `ubenchmark` code links to JMH in a way that we can't strip
out JMH and replace it with another alternative.

Apparently calcite-ubenchmark is published to Maven Central, so it does
look like "a temporary use for tests", but it finds its way to the Apache
Calcite release.