We must not publish the jar. GPL is a category X license.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 2:56 PM Stamatis Zampetakis wrote:
>
> I'm fine with the decision of not publishing the jar.
>
> I never used the jar itself but I noticed while working with another
> project using jmh.
>
> Indeed having
I'm fine with the decision of not publishing the jar.
I never used the jar itself but I noticed while working with another
project using jmh.
Indeed having performance benchmarks is a very good idea.
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:56 PM Vladimir Sitnikov <
sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >no
>no longer publish the ubenchmark jar to nexus
We could resume publishing benchmark jar, however, it embeds third-party
code, so it requires to compose the license file.
I have chosen to skip the publication as a trivial escape hatch.
Have you used ubenchmark.jar previously?
It would be great if
Hello,
As of release 1.22.0, we no longer publish the ubenchmark jar to nexus and
(I guess as consequence) neither to maven central.
Initially, I was a bit surprised but apparently it is related to this
thread and LEGAL-399 [1] so it seems normal.
I am bringing this up just to avoid that other
Thanks for checking this out!
--
Michael Mior
mm...@uwaterloo.ca
Le sam. 11 août 2018 à 04:44, Vladimir Sitnikov
a écrit :
> Here's legal jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-399
>
> TL;DR: JMH is GPL + "Classpath" exception, and that exception allows to
> link JMH with
Here's legal jira: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-399
TL;DR: JMH is GPL + "Classpath" exception, and that exception allows to
link JMH with independent modules to produce an executable regardless of
the license terms of these independent modules.
In other words, no harm is made even
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.)
Julian
On Aug 10, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
I think it is fine to
That’s my understanding as well.
I thought we’d settled this a while ago. (I can’t find a URL to prove it.)
Julian
> On Aug 10, 2018, at 7:58 AM, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
> I think it is fine to use JMH, you are not "redistributing" it, it is here
> only to run local benchmarks.
>
> We have
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
Enrico
Il giorno ven 10 ago 2018 alle ore 16:56 Michael Mior ha
scritto:
> Perhaps we should just open up a JIRA case on
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
wrote:
> There are two questions there:
> 1)
My limited understanding is that this is ok since ubenchmark is optional
and not required for Calcite to function. See the JIRA below for a similar
question from Apache Arrow.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-324
--
Michael Mior
mm...@apache.org
Le jeu. 9 août 2018 à 14:53,
Hi,
Apache Calcite has `ubenchmark` Maven module for benchmarking purposes, and
it depends on org.openjdk.jmh:jmh-core library for that.
It turns out jmh-core is GPL licensed (e.g.
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.openjdk.jmh/jmh-core ).
Here's my question: is there a licensing issue
12 matches
Mail list logo
