Robert Munteanu wrote
> On Sat, 2016-10-29 at 20:53 +0900, Steven Walters wrote:
>> This feels like an "eating your own dog food" scenario, where Sling
>> could just switch to using its own developed/maintained commons JSON
>> library...
>> Or is there something missing from the public
On Sat, 2016-10-29 at 20:53 +0900, Steven Walters wrote:
> This feels like an "eating your own dog food" scenario, where Sling
> could just switch to using its own developed/maintained commons JSON
> library...
> Or is there something missing from the public conversation as to why
> it's being
This feels like an "eating your own dog food" scenario, where Sling
could just switch to using its own developed/maintained commons JSON
library...
Or is there something missing from the public conversation as to why
it's being avoided/not mentioned?
On Oct 28, 2016, at 4:20 AM, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Yea, johnzon was also mentioned on the Felix Dev list. Like this.
>
> Regardless of the licensing org.json situation, given that there is
> javax.json as a standard API, we should maybe consider anyways to
Hi
Yea, johnzon was also mentioned on the Felix Dev list. Like this.
Regardless of the licensing org.json situation, given that there is javax.json
as a standard API, we should maybe consider anyways to replace our uses of the
org.json library with javax.json.
As I said, nothing decided yet,
On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 08:08 +, Felix Meschberger wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Over at legal-discuss there is a discussion of whether the json.org
> library with the amended MIT license (remember the „use for good not
> evil“ clause ?) should be „banned“ by reconsidering the „A“ rating of
> this
Hi all
Over at legal-discuss there is a discussion of whether the json.org library
with the amended MIT license (remember the „use for good not evil“ clause ?)
should be „banned“ by reconsidering the „A“ rating of this license (assuming
the clause is just a joke) and turning it into an „X“