www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:28:52 GMT
The guy who published it is a committer/PMC member on Zest.  Though I do
agree, its generally not a valid release.

John

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:18 AM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> I don't use GH much, but I don't see a way to contact the owner or open an
> issue against that repo.  Any suggestions on if and how to deal with this
> pom?
>
> -Alex
>
> From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:01 PM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
>
>
> 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