srowen commented on a change in pull request #32253:
URL: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/32253#discussion_r619215551



##########
File path: mllib-local/pom.xml
##########
@@ -75,48 +75,12 @@
       <type>test-jar</type>
       <scope>test</scope>
     </dependency>
+
+    <dependency>
+      <groupId>dev.ludovic.netlib</groupId>
+      <artifactId>blas</artifactId>
+    </dependency>
   </dependencies>
-  <profiles>
-    <profile>
-      <id>netlib-lgpl</id>

Review comment:
       That's right. The ASF needs to release artifacts that are as or no more 
restrictive than ALv2, and that ends mostly meaning: no binary artifacts with 
copy-left or field-use-of-restricted licenses like the GPL family. It does turn 
on releasing a copy of code, or in the case of GPL, more about linking to it.
   
   The typical policy is that it's OK to release software that can merely make 
use of such libraries at runtime (without actually distributing them directly) 
as long as it doesn't substantially depend on their presence. I believe that 
dynamic linking in the way you describe is OK - just like having an SPI in JVM 
code that may be provided by some other GPL code at the user's runtime.
   
   My main goal is to preserve current behavior. Right now if someone has, say, 
MKL on their native lib path for the JVM, and built with this alternate 
profile, it'd be accelerated. If you're saying that still works, but would not 
require this separate build profile because of the different loading strategy, 
that's an improvement.
   
   If nothing that ends up in transitive dependencies can be called statically 
linked to, say, libgfortran or anything GPL/LGPL, I think this is fine.
   
   Have you by chance tried this integration when OpenBLAS is present to verify 
it makes use of it?
   
   (One tiny side note, I think your parent POM still references GPLv2 though 
the license text does not)
   




-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to