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: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 00:01:17 GMT
John,

The link that Alex provided (
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.codeartisans/org.json/20150729 ) is
backed up by this source code:

https://github.com/eskatos/org.json-java

That source code is purely a pom that packages up the original json.org
code. It has no source code whatsoever. The README says just this and
inspection of the src/ directory shows no additional or modified content.

The license clause is simply mis-leading and wrong. It breaks the
problematic do-no-evil clause out into a comment instead of recognizing it
as part of the license.

    <licenses>
        <license>
            <name>MIT</name>
            <url>http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT</url>
            <distribution>repo</distribution>
            <comments>The software shall be used for good, not
evil.</comments>
        </license>
    </licenses>





On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:50 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:34 PM Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:07 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:16 PM Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Justin Mclean
>> >> <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> >> MIT is OSI certified, compatible with the GPL, and category A.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The JSON license is not OSI certified, not compatible with the
GPL,
>> >> >> and (now) category X.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yep no disagreement from me there.
>> >> >
>> >> > I should of said it’s based of the text of the MIT license plus the
>> “Do
>> >> > good not evil bit” which it probably why the pom states MIT.
>> >>
>> >> All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples.
>> >>
>> >> Religions, Species, and Software Licenses are all examples of
>> >> categories where having a "common ancestor" doesn't mean that two
>> >> instances of the superclass are compatible.
>> >>
>> >> The POM is misleading to the point of being unhelpful and incorrect.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Just wondering, what POM are you looking at? The true pom has this for
>> its
>> > license:
>> >
>> > <licenses>
>> >     <license>
>> >       <name>provided without support or warranty</name>
>> >       <url>http://www.json.org/license.html</url>
>> >     </license>
>> >   </licenses>
>> >
>> > This is the 20090211 version.  Similar for the 20080701 version.  Prior
>> to
>> > it had no license declaration.
>>
>> Here is the link provided earlier in the thread:
>>
>> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.codeartisans/org.json/20150729
>>
>> That page indicates that the JAR is made available under the MIT and
>> Apache licenses.
>>
>
> Ok, that's what I'm checking on then.  The link Alex pointed out is for a
> different artifact (binary compatible), different source code.
>
> Its similar to the google vs oracle copyright an API case.
>
>
>
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message