www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Fwd: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Tue, 23 May 2017 16:04:47 GMT

> Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jim Jagielski <jim@apache.org>
> Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
> Date: November 23, 2016 at 9:10:39 AM EST
> To: ASF Board <board@apache.org>
> Reply-To: board@apache.org
> Message-Id: <B56ABB21-9954-44CC-AA3D-693EE2BBAE5C@apache.org>
> (forwarded from legal-discuss@)
> As some of you may know, recently the JSON License has been
> moved to Category X (https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x).
> I understand that this has impacted some projects, especially
> those in the midst of doing a release. I also understand that
> up until now, really, there has been no real "outcry" over our
> usage of it, especially from end-users and other consumers of
> our projects which use it.
> As compelling as that is, the fact is that the JSON license
> itself is not OSI approved and is therefore not, by definition,
> an "Open Source license" and, as such, cannot be considered as
> one which is acceptable as related to categories.
> Therefore, w/ my VP Legal hat on, I am making the following
> statements:
> o No new project, sub-project or codebase, which has not
>   used JSON licensed jars (or similar), are allowed to use
>   them. In other words, if you haven't been using them, you
>   aren't allowed to start. It is Cat-X.
> o If you have been using it, and have done so in a *release*,
>   AND there has been NO pushback from your community/eco-system,
>   you have a temporary exclusion from the Cat-X classification thru
>   April 30, 2017. At that point in time, ANY and ALL usage
>   of these JSON licensed artifacts are DISALLOWED. You must
>   either find a suitably licensed replacement, or do without.
>   There will be NO exceptions.
> o Any situation not covered by the above is an implicit
>   DISALLOWAL of usage.
> Also please note that in the 2nd situation (where a temporary
> exclusion has been granted), you MUST ensure that NOTICE explicitly
> notifies the end-user that a JSON licensed artifact exists. They
> may not be aware of it up to now, and that MUST be addressed.
> If there are any questions, please ask on the legal-discuss@a.o
> list.
> --
> Jim Jagielski
> VP Legal Affairs

View raw message