Chinmay +1, Do you want to drive :) Thks Amol
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chinmay Kolhatkar <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes... That's the mail.. There are couple if related conversations can be > seen here too: > https://lists.apache.org/[email protected] > > I suggest we take a look at it and do the needful from our end too. > > -Chinmay. > > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Amol Kekre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chinmay, > > Is this the thread you were looking for? > > > > Thks > > Amol > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > Date: Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:28 PM > > Subject: Re: JSON License and Apache Projects > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Stephan, > > > > What you suggest should work (if you add another dependency to provide > the > > needed classes). > > > > You have to be careful, however, because your consumers may expect to get > > the full json.org API. > > > > I would suggest that exclusions like this should only be used while your > > direct dependency still has the dependency on json.org. When they fix > it, > > you can drop the exclusion and all will be good. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:21 AM, Stephan Ewen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just to be on the safe side: > > > > > > If project X depends on another project Y that uses json.org (and thus > > > project X has json.org as a transitive dependency) is it sufficient to > > > exclude the transitive json.org dependency in the reference to project > > Y? > > > > > > Something like that: > > > > > > <dependency> > > > <groupId>org.apache.hive.hcatalog</groupId> > > > <artifactId>hcatalog-core</artifactId> > > > <version>0.12.0</version> > > > <exclusions> > > > <exclusion> > > > <groupId>org.json</groupId> > > > <artifactId>json</artifactId> > > > </exclusion> > > > </exclusions> > > > </dependency> > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > is that library able to deal with the jdk9 module system? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24.11.2016 02:16, James Bognar wrote: > > > > > > > >> Shameless plug for Apache Juneau that has a cleanroom implementation > > of > > > a > > > >> JSON serializer and parser in context of a common serialization API > > that > > > >> includes a variety of serialization languages for POJOs. > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:10 PM Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> The VP Legal for Apache has determined that the JSON processing > > library > > > >>> from json.org <https://github.com/stleary/JSON-java> is not usable > > as > > > a > > > >>> dependency by Apache projects. This is because the license > includes a > > > >>> line > > > >>> that places a field of use condition on downstream users in a way > > that > > > is > > > >>> not compatible with Apache's license. > > > >>> > > > >>> This decision is, unfortunately, a change from the previous > > situation. > > > >>> While the current decision is correct, it would have been nice if > we > > > had > > > >>> had this decision originally. > > > >>> > > > >>> As such, some existing projects may be impacted because they > assumed > > > that > > > >>> the json.org dependency was OK to use. > > > >>> > > > >>> Incubator projects that are currently using the json.org library > > have > > > >>> several courses of action: > > > >>> > > > >>> 1) just drop it. Some projects like Storm have demos that use > > twitter4j > > > >>> which incorporates the problematic code. These demos aren't core > and > > > >>> could > > > >>> just be dropped for a time. > > > >>> > > > >>> 2) help dependencies move away from problem code. I have sent a > pull > > > >>> request to twitter4 <https://github.com/yusuke/twitter4j/pull/254 > >j, > > > for > > > >>> example, that eliminates the problem. If they accept the pull, then > > all > > > >>> would be good for the projects that use twitter4j (and thus > json.org > > ) > > > >>> > > > >>> 3) replace the json.org artifact with a compatible one that is > open > > > >>> source. > > > >>> I have created and published an artifact based on clean-room > Android > > > code > > > >>> <https://github.com/tdunning/open-json> that replicates the most > > > >>> important > > > >>> parts of the json.org code. This code is compatible, but lacks > some > > > >>> coverage. It also could lead to jar hell if used unjudiciously > > because > > > it > > > >>> uses the org.json package. Shading and exclusion in a pom might > help. > > > Or > > > >>> not. Go with caution here. > > > >>> > > > >>> 4) switch to safer alternatives such as Jackson. This requires code > > > >>> changes, but is probably a good thing to do. This option is the one > > > that > > > >>> is > > > >>> best in the long-term but is also the most expensive. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >>> From: Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> > > > >>> Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:10 AM > > > >>> Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects > > > >>> To: ASF Board <[email protected]> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> (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 [email protected] > > > >>> list. > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Jim Jagielski > > > >>> VP Legal Affairs > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
