Another option would be to use jackson and use the JSON classes in
Wicket as API wrappers.

Martijn

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ted Dunning has created this package:
>
> https://github.com/tdunning/open-json
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Martijn Dashorst
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> OK,
>>
>> So we need to exorcise the JSON code from our project. This has to be
>> done in all active branches.
>>
>> It also occurred to me that the licensing for these files is
>> incorrectly implemented: the JSON license should also be in /licenses
>> so that the release script will add it to the LICENSE file upon
>> release.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Sebastien <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Looking at
>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/master/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ajax/json/README
>>>
>>> The link https://github.com/douglascrockford/JSON-java redirects to
>>> https://github.com/stleary/JSON-java/
>>>
>>> And, https://github.com/stleary/JSON-java/blob/master/LICENSE indicates
>>> that the library is JSON.org licensed.
>>> So, is our copy be affected by the new license terms?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We do not depend on it but use a copy of it:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/master/wicket-
>>>> core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ajax/json
>>>>
>>>> Martin Grigorov
>>>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Martijn Dashorst <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > FYI: the json.org library for parsing and generating JSON documents
>>>> > is now category X, which means it is prohibited from being included
>>>> > in Apache releases.
>>>> >
>>>> > As far as I know we are not exposed, but we should be diligent and
>>>> > make note of this and replace if we do have a (transitive)
>>>> > dependency.
>>>> >
>>>> > The issue is the "don't use this for evil" clause, that makes it hard to
>>>> > get past legal departments without any issue. The license is also not
>>>> > approved by the OSI, and therefore moved to the category X.
>>>> >
>>>> > Martijn
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> > From: Jim Jagielski <[email protected]>
>>>> > Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:08 PM
>>>> > Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
>>>> > To: [email protected]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > 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]
>>>> >
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com



-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com

Reply via email to