www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: A grace period for getting rid of JSON license jars
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2016 23:55:29 GMT
On 18 November 2016 at 23:41, 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>
>

Does this use the same Java package names?

This can cause serious problems for larger projects that may be using
both versions of the library in different areas, and which may not be
able to change to one or the other.


>
>
> 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