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

Re: Legal implications of using JMH

I agree with Gian. 

Calcite uses JMH. We don’t distribute the binaries it produces — because we only need them for running benchmarks. 

It’s not an identical situation to MySQL because while there are other implementations of JDBC — e.g. Postgres — there is only one implementation of JMH. But JMH is only used during testing, not production.

So, let’s not do anything rash, like starting to remove code. I think we will have clarity in a few days as various folks in Apache react to what Owen has done. We can revisit this as part of the first Druid release.


> On Apr 23, 2018, at 2:14 PM, Gian Merlino <gian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not sure why the ORC folks decided this was necessary. I found these
> two links,
> -
> -
> It looks like they ended up moving the code to a different, non-Apache
> repository.
> The relevant Apache policy, I think, is:
> legal/resolved.html#optional. From what I've seen it comes up most often
> with MySQL drivers (which we also use). See also
> jira/browse/LEGAL-200.
> It seems to me like JMH and MySQL are in the same boat. Both are optional
> dependencies -- there is no reason that a "normal" user needs to run
> druid-benchmarks. If this understanding is correct, then we should just
> make sure we aren't distributing JMH (or MySQL drivers) as part of binary
> releases. But I would be interested in understanding the thought process of
> the ORC folks in more detail.
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Roman Leventov <>
> wrote:
>> See this:
>> JMH
>> might be not welcome in an Apache-licensed project.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx