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 Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:23:39 GMT
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:38 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But in any case it will only work if the publicly usable API is
> identical in
> > the two jars.
> > Or rather, if the new jar contains all the publicly usable objects
> (methods,
> > fields,classes etc) from the original jar.
> >
> > That's kind of the point of the new jar
>
> In which case it's incomplete; there's no JSONML class in the new jar
> for example.
> I've not checked the fields that may have been used.
>

You are correct that the current jar is incomplete. It is an expedient to
allow projects to continue releasing while they do something more correct.


>
> >
> > And the new jar will have to continue to track changes to the old jar.
> >
> > I disagree, in the long term the projects can either switch to Jackson or
> > some other licence-compliant library, or we can hope that json.org fixes
> > their licence.
>
> There will always be projects that are unable or unwilling to switch.


This preference is equivalent to "unable or unwilling to make proper Apache
releases".

The JSON license is unacceptable. It puts ill-defined constraints on the
downstream users. It isn't open source. It can't be a dependency for a
proper Apache release.

The library I have created is one way around the problem, but it is
definitely not a long-term solution.

Mime
View raw message