www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A grace period for getting rid of JSON license jars
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2016 03:37:16 GMT
Whether you call it 'source dependency' or 'embedded' code it makes
that thing category-x.  Yes, understood and not debating that.

The question is not a technical "how".  We all know how to do this.

The question is not a policy "if". It's category-x and that decision
has been made.

The question, I believe, is whether a grace period will be afforded to
continue making Apache releases with pre-existing usage of the now
offending library/code.  Alan, Sean, Henri, Jim, and yourself appear
supportive of the idea.  I'm a +1 as well.  Simply prompting for a
decision.

Thanks
Joe


On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Definitely appreciate you taking the initiative on providing an
>> alternative implementation.  In the case I'm concerned about we have a
>> library, twitter4j, which uses the json.org code as a source
>> dependency so we'd not be able to exclude their binary dep and replace
>> it.
>
>
> I just looked and twitter4j doesn't really use the json.org code as a
> dependency at all. It embeds that code into its own source code.
>
> That makes twitter4j just as bad as the json.org code.
>
> It shouldn't be too hard to do the source code surgery to remove the
> offending code, however.
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message