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,
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ORC-298
> - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c27267a6a3df9b76c5e036fc181c86
> It looks like they ended up moving the code to a different, non-Apache
> The relevant Apache policy, I think, is: http://www.apache.org/
> legal/resolved.html#optional. From what I've seen it comes up most often
> with MySQL drivers (which we also use). See also https://issues.apache.org/
> 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 <leventov.ru@xxxxxxxxx>
>> See this:
>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmh-dev/2018-April/002743.html 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