Hello Paul, I am aware of the license. If you consider sticking with the json.org library, let me point you at http://github.com/ning/org-json which is our fresh-off-the-press-just-opensourced fork of the library from $DAY_JOB that is kind of usable at this point. It even has a test suite.
We (as in Ning) tried to give our patches back to json.org but they never answered our mails. Also, their "releases" are kind of arbitrary, so the library most people use (the 2008... one from repo1) has a bunch of bugs that bit us. We moved most of our internal stuff to Jackson but json.org is still a nice small and usable library. That said, ripping either this one or json-simple out and using either or would be an overall win for the code base. :-) -h On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:23, Paul Lindner <[email protected]> wrote: > Some people have privately mentioned that the json.org code base is > unacceptable due to it's unenforceable license which mentions: "This > software shall be used for Good, not Evil". > > See > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WINK-159 > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2383 > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JETTISON-66 > > If we decide we're going to change this we should make that decision now > before 2.0.0 is released. > > > On May 25, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am using a slightly newer json.org library that has a bunch of bug >> fixes applied to it (which is a collection of various point-in-time >> changes to the json.org codebase). This actually serializes the "null" >> value in the JSONArray out, which in turn breaks the >> serializeJsonArray() test. I was wondering whether this behaviour >> would be a problem for the consumers of that class? I "fixed" this by >> changing the expected reply for our internal Shindig branch but I am >> not sure whether there might be another problem lurking under that. >> >> -h >> >> (Yes, I plan to push our changes to github) > >
