www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:24:33 GMT
I will contact him.

From: "John D. Ament" <johndament@apache.org<mailto:johndament@apache.org>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:28 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: JSON License and Apache Projects

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<mailto: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<mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:01 PM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss@apache.org>" <legal-discuss@apache.org<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:johndament@apache.org>>
wrote:


On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:34 PM Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>>
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:07 PM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org<mailto:johndament@apache.org>>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 1:16 PM Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>>
wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Justin Mclean
>> <justin@classsoftware.com<mailto: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<mailto:legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org<mailto:legal-discuss-help@apache.org>


Mime
View raw message