Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

FYI this is how Fury excludes benchmark from the distribution[1] Best, tison. [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury/pull/1272 John D. Ament 于2023年12月31日周日 23:44写道： > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 7:50 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > > > According to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-450,

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 7:50 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > According to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-450, it's OK > to use a GPL linter. And a project can use GPL "build tools provided > they leave no code traces (licensed under a cat X license) in your > final release artifacts". >

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

PS Use of jmh was addressed explicitly: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-399 On Fri, Dec 29, 2023 at 4:50 PM Julian Hyde wrote: > > According to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-450, it's OK > to use a GPL linter. And a project can use GPL "build tools provided > they leave

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

According to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-450, it's OK to use a GPL linter. And a project can use GPL "build tools provided they leave no code traces (licensed under a cat X license) in your final release artifacts". In Calcite we use jmh on the understanding that it does not

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

> For instance, if your maven build is `-Pbenchmark` and it's clear > that the user needs to include this license when compiling from source. Yeah. I'm going to collaborate with Fury to follow this approach and document clearly how a developer can intentionally run benchmark with JMH as a dep.

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 11:38 AM tison wrote: > > application, a developer has preinstalled the JDK (or using a manager of > > some kind to install it - so not something we're forcing upon them). In > > No. To running a Java Application in a normal way, the JRE is > required. Saying "not

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

> application, a developer has preinstalled the JDK (or using a manager of > some kind to install it - so not something we're forcing upon them). In No. To running a Java Application in a normal way, the JRE is required. Saying "not something we're forcing upon them" sounds sophistry. Best,

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Hi John, Glad to hear your feedback. Reply inline: > In the case of JMH, the repository I linked above forces the user to download > the additional dependency from maven central (or similar repository) rather > than relying on the system preinstalled library. >From a technical view, this is not

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 8:09 PM tison wrote: > Hi, > > The new podling Fury depends on jmh[1] which is licensed under GPLv2 > with "CLASSPATH" EXCEPTION. > Just to confirm, are you referring to the code under [benchmark]? > > IIRC Flink ever factored out its benchmark code into a separate

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Hi, As listed in that document, a GPL license with a classpath exception is category X, so everything that applies to other category X licenses applies to that license. System dependencies that users or developers typically have installed that don't impact the license of the compiled package

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Justin>GPL files with classpath exceptions are not allowed [1] Justin, could you please elaborate? The link in [1] you mention reads "Special exceptions to the GNU GPL (e.g. GNU Classpath)" If "GPL with classpath exception" is not allowed, then **all** ASF Java-based projects violate the policy

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Thanks for your feedback! I interpret the response as we don't distribute JMH files in source or binary form, and it's optionally included in test scope. So we can depend on its classes like we depend on "java.lang.String". Again, no GPL files are distributed with Fury in source or binary form.

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Hi, GPL files with classpath exceptions are not allowed [1]. Any files with that license cannot be in an ASF distribution [2] in source or binary form. They cannot be a non-optional dependency. [3] Kind Regards, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x 2.

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Most JMH source files (e.g. see [1]) have the same license as java.lang.String. Do you exclude files that use `java.lang.String` from the release? I doubt so. The same goes for the benchmarks. >Or, we can exclude the benchmark code from the release like [4] but >still hold it in the VCS. There's

Re: [LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

I think once it stays in the test scope, it should be good. The release policy is about compiling sources to get the binary, which means the final version could work without GPLx is the most important part. Sheng Wu 吴晟 Twitter, wusheng1108 tison 于2023年12月27日周三 09:09写道： > > Hi, > > The new

[LICENSE QUESTION] Use jmh as a benchmark tool

Hi, The new podling Fury depends on jmh[1] which is licensed under GPLv2 with "CLASSPATH" EXCEPTION. IIRC Flink ever factored out its benchmark code into a separate repo [2] to comply with ASF's license policy [3]. But since Fury doesn't modify jmh's code, just refers to some "org.openjdk.jmh."