netbeans-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <...@douma.nu>
Subject Re: Fwd: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:08:58 GMT
On 2016-11-24 16:01, Emilian Bold wrote:
> NetBeans releases use JSON Simple in libs.json_simple which is Apache 2.0.
>
> The repository does have a module, lib.wag (Zembly Web API Gateway
> Libraries), with a dependency on json.org.jar but I don't believe we
> distribute this module...

Note that the ruling is that we cannot even allow just having a dependency
on the json.org library.

>
>
>
> --emi
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Ate Douma <ate@douma.nu> wrote:
>
>> FYI
>>
>> I've no clue if this might impact Apache NetBeans but if the json.org
>> library
>> is in use (directly or transitively) somehow in NetBeans, that then will
>> have
>> to be removed and replaced with something else.
>>
>> There is more discussion ongoing on alternatives and solutions on
>> general@incubator.apache.org as well as on legal-discuss@apache.org.
>>
>> Ate
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Fwd: JSON License and Apache Projects
>> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:10:06 -0800
>> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org <general@incubator.apache.org>
>>
>> The VP Legal for Apache has determined that the JSON processing library
>> from json.org <https://github.com/stleary/JSON-java> is not usable as a
>> dependency by Apache projects. This is because the license includes a line
>> that places a field of use condition on downstream users in a way that is
>> not compatible with Apache's license.
>>
>> This decision is, unfortunately, a change from the previous situation.
>> While the current decision is correct, it would have been nice if we had
>> had this decision originally.
>>
>> As such, some existing projects may be impacted because they assumed that
>> the json.org dependency was OK to use.
>>
>> Incubator projects that are currently using the json.org library have
>> several courses of action:
>>
>> 1) just drop it. Some projects like Storm have demos that use twitter4j
>> which incorporates the problematic code. These demos aren't core and could
>> just be dropped for a time.
>>
>> 2) help dependencies move away from problem code. I have sent a pull
>> request to twitter4 <https://github.com/yusuke/twitter4j/pull/254>j, for
>> example, that eliminates the problem. If they accept the pull, then all
>> would be good for the projects that use twitter4j (and thus json.org)
>>
>> 3) replace the json.org artifact with a compatible one that is open
>> source.
>> I have created and published an artifact based on clean-room Android code
>> <https://github.com/tdunning/open-json> that replicates the most important
>> parts of the json.org code. This code is compatible, but lacks some
>> coverage. It also could lead to jar hell if used unjudiciously because it
>> uses the org.json package. Shading and exclusion in a pom might help. Or
>> not. Go with caution here.
>>
>> 4) switch to safer alternatives such as Jackson. This requires code
>> changes, but is probably a good thing to do. This option is the one that is
>> best in the long-term but is also the most expensive.
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Jim Jagielski <jim@apache.org>
>> Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:10 AM
>> Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
>> To: ASF Board <board@apache.org>
>>
>>
>> (forwarded from legal-discuss@)
>>
>> As some of you may know, recently the JSON License has been
>> moved to Category X (https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x).
>>
>> I understand that this has impacted some projects, especially
>> those in the midst of doing a release. I also understand that
>> up until now, really, there has been no real "outcry" over our
>> usage of it, especially from end-users and other consumers of
>> our projects which use it.
>>
>> As compelling as that is, the fact is that the JSON license
>> itself is not OSI approved and is therefore not, by definition,
>> an "Open Source license" and, as such, cannot be considered as
>> one which is acceptable as related to categories.
>>
>> Therefore, w/ my VP Legal hat on, I am making the following
>> statements:
>>
>>  o No new project, sub-project or codebase, which has not
>>    used JSON licensed jars (or similar), are allowed to use
>>    them. In other words, if you haven't been using them, you
>>    aren't allowed to start. It is Cat-X.
>>
>>  o If you have been using it, and have done so in a *release*,
>>    AND there has been NO pushback from your community/eco-system,
>>    you have a temporary exclusion from the Cat-X classification thru
>>    April 30, 2017. At that point in time, ANY and ALL usage
>>    of these JSON licensed artifacts are DISALLOWED. You must
>>    either find a suitably licensed replacement, or do without.
>>    There will be NO exceptions.
>>
>>  o Any situation not covered by the above is an implicit
>>    DISALLOWAL of usage.
>>
>> Also please note that in the 2nd situation (where a temporary
>> exclusion has been granted), you MUST ensure that NOTICE explicitly
>> notifies the end-user that a JSON licensed artifact exists. They
>> may not be aware of it up to now, and that MUST be addressed.
>>
>> If there are any questions, please ask on the legal-discuss@a.o
>> list.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Jagielski
>> VP Legal Affairs
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message