www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A grace period for getting rid of JSON license jars
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2016 23:42:20 GMT
Joe,

I think that the consensus is that JSON is category X.

Consider using the library I just built. Should result in little or no user
visible change.



On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:30 AM, 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
>
>

Mime
View raw message