www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wang <andrew.w...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: A grace period for getting rid of JSON license jars
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:21:33 GMT
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:09 PM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 November 2016 at 00:02, Andrew Wang <andrew.wang@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > In Hadoop, we have the issue of third party libraries that have a bundled
> > version of json.org. We can't simply swap it out.
>
> If those libraries are bundled with Hadoop, but are optional, then one
> solution may be to stop bundling those libraries.
>
> You're welcome to chime in on the JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-13050

This is a dependency on the AWS SDK. It's not optional, and upgrading it to
a version that doesn't have json.org has compatibility implications.

An overall point is that sunsetting json.org can have compatibility
implications for Apache projects. This affects user expectations and
project guarantees around end-of-life for a release line.

I'll add that typical EOLs for enterprise software is measured in multiple
years. If I had my druthers, we'd grandfather in existing release lines
where bumping json.org would affect compatibility and thus EOL
expectations. Failing that, giving us at least until June would be
significant.


> >
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Uhh...
> >>
> >> I was hoping that we have a MUCH sooner deadline than June 1st if we are
> >> saying "next release after".  The June date is more appropriate if the
> >> language is "must have clean release before".
> >>
> >> In any case, I now have put an artifact on maven central that should
> allow
> >> most of these projects to simply change a maven pom by replacing the
> >> dependency. The artifact isn't in the mvncentral search engine yet, but
> it
> >> is in central.
> >>
> >> This is the dependency you should need:
> >>
> >> <dependency>
> >>   <groupId>com.tdunning</groupId>
> >>   <artifactId>json</artifactId>
> >>   <version>1.0</version>
> >> </dependency>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Alan Gates <alanfgates@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am new to the legal discuss list, so I’m not sure how we declare
> >>> consensus here.  I agree with Ted’s clarification that this applies to
> the
> >>> next release after the June 1 2017 deadline.  Thus my reformulated
> proposal
> >>> would look like:
> >>> “Projects already using the JSON license are allowed to continue making
> >>> releases without modification until June 1 2017.  Any releases made
> after
> >>> that date must not have dependencies on code released under the JSON
> >>> license.”
> >>>
> >>> Alan.
> >>>
> >>> > On Nov 18, 2016, at 20:30, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Hello,
> >>> >
> >>> > Has a decision been reached by any chance?  We're looking to kick off
> >>> > the next Apache NiFi release and while we've done the work to
> >>> > eliminate the use of this library it required us to reduce user
> >>> > convenience in one case that we'd love to undo and expect the grace
> >>> > period will resolve.
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks
> >>> > Joe
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I like this too, but would rather have the "next release after
> >>> >> xxx/yyy" form
> >>> >> of deadline.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> The more I think about it, the more this makes sense. Basically
> >>> >>> we refuse the use of it for any new projects/efforts, but those
> >>> >>> projects which are currently using it, with no issues, should
> >>> >>> be allowed to continue using them, grandfathered, at least
for
> >>> >>> a time being.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Let me mull this over some more and make an official determination/
> >>> >>> ruling. :)
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Alan Gates <alanfgates@gmail.com>
> >>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> The recent moving of the JSON license to category X means
that a
> >>> >>>> number
> >>> >>>> of projects cannot do any releases until this is fixed.
 I know
> this
> >>> >>>> includes Hadoop, Hive, and Spark, and probably a number
of others
> >>> >>>> since
> >>> >>>> hadoop-common (which many project use) depends on jars
from
> >>> >>>> json.org.  The
> >>> >>>> Hive team in particular is trying to get a maintenance
release out
> >>> >>>> which is
> >>> >>>> blocked by this.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I talked with Jim Jagielski briefly today and he suggested
that
> >>> >>>> perhaps
> >>> >>>> we could have a grandfather clause on this so that projects
that
> >>> >>>> already are
> >>> >>>> using it could continue to, at least for a period of time,
so that
> >>> >>>> they can
> >>> >>>> continue to produce releases rather than needing to spend
> unplanned
> >>> >>>> time
> >>> >>>> switching out this library[1].
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> To be specific I propose we give projects already using
this
> license
> >>> >>>> 6
> >>> >>>> months to clean this up in which they can continue to release
with
> >>> >>>> dependencies on the JSON license.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> Alan.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> 1. The amount of time to fix this will not be trivial.
 Based on a
> >>> >>>> little bit of digging I’ve done the alternatives are
not 100%
> >>> >>>> identical in
> >>> >>>> their behavior which will mean projects will need to thoroughly
> test
> >>> >>>> the
> >>> >>>> replacements and change their code to deal with the differences.
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> >>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message