www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shane Curcuru <...@shanecurcuru.org>
Subject Re: JSON license again
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:28:59 GMT
+1 to moving it out of Category A.

The point isn't evil or lack thereof, the point is that it places
additional restrictions beyond the Apache license on downstream
redistributors that are affecting some of our users.  Given that it
seems there are ample reasonably equivalent and nicely licensed
alternatives, I agree with Ted on this one.

http://johnzon.apache.org/

- Shane

Ted Dunning wrote on 10/27/16 1:49 PM:
> 
> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
> institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the
> json.org <http://json.org> license is a Category A license.
> 
> The json.org <http://json.org> version of the BSD license is problematic
> because it imposes constraints on the downstream consumer by including a
> constraint on field of endeavor that the software "not be used for
> evil". Debian and Google, for instance, won't consume anything with this
> license:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
> 
> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
> that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
> 
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
> 
> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
> not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those
> dependencies from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the
> json.org <http://json.org> license isn't acceptable to those customers.
> 
> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
> hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
> consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree
> with those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that
> myself, but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not
> evil would make it impossible to get anything done.
> 
> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the
> non-free nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation
> of the core part of the library available from the Android team
> <https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> so
> removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine
> approach.
> 
> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following
> Apache projects are affected 
> 
>     Tika
>     Hive
>     Wink
>     possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
>     Shindig
>     Spark (transitive from Hive)
>     Giraph
>     Rave
>     Felix
>     Tuscany
>     Tinkerpop
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message