On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 08:08 +0000, 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 license (assuming the clause is just a joke) and turning it into
> an „X“ rating (don’t use based on Debian’s and other’s
> considerations:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software
> /
> 
> It is not decided yet. But we should probably be prepared.

We reference org.json in too many bundles bundles, a quick grep
revelead:

- bundles/commons/log-webconsole
- bundles/commons/metrics
- contrib/extensions/slf4j-mdc
- launchpad/builder ( SmokeIT )
- tooling/ide

So the effort would not be too great. I guess each of these can get
blocker issues for the next release, so we don't forget to remove the
dependency when releasing.

More problematic however is the bundles/common/json situation, where we
include the source of some of the json.org classes, which all include
the provision "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." . I am
not sure what we need to do about that, if anything.


> Plenty of alternatives exist: Jackson, GSon, and IMHO quite
> interesting javax.json (https://json-processing-spec.java.net/) with
> a RI from glassfish (https://jsonp.java.net/).

For the sake of being complete, there's also

  http://johnzon.apache.org/

which implements JSR-353 ( JSON processing 1.0 ) and also targets JSR-
374 ( JSON processing 1.1, which is due to be released in Q3 2016 ).
"Someone" will have to take a look at the libraries and suggest a
replacement though, there's no point in deploying multiple libraries
for the same thing.


> Assuming we would have to change things, I suggest we reimplement the
> API of our refactoring of the json.org library with javax.json. We
> could use the RI form glassfish (which is OSGi-ready and includes the
> API) or implement our own version.

+1

But I rather hope that the legal situation is cleared up and we don't
need to do anything about it.

Robert

> 
> WDYT ?
> 
> Regards
> Felix

Reply via email to