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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> ha > scritto: > >> 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 < >> [email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> There are two questions there: >>> 1) Is it possible to use third party code with "forbidden" licenses? >>> As you say, the answer is "it is OK for optional modules". >>> >>> 2) What should be the license of `ubenchmark` module? >>> It looks like `ubenchmark` code links to JMH in a way that we can't strip >>> out JMH and replace it with another alternative. >>> >>> Apparently calcite-ubenchmark is published to Maven Central, so it does >> not >>> look like "a temporary use for tests", but it finds its way to the Apache >>> Calcite release. >>> >>> Vladimir >>> >>
