incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Theodorou <>
Subject Re: JSON License and Apache Projects
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2016 09:00:29 GMT
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 <> wrote:
>> The VP Legal for Apache has determined that the JSON processing library
>> from <> 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 dependency was OK to use.
>> Incubator projects that are currently using the 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 <>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
>> 3) replace the artifact with a compatible one that is open
>> source.
>> I have created and published an artifact based on clean-room Android code
>> <> that replicates the most important
>> parts of the 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 <>
>> Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:10 AM
>> Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
>> To: ASF Board <>
>> (forwarded from legal-discuss@)
>> As some of you may know, recently the JSON License has been
>> moved to 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 legal-discuss@a.o
>> list.
>> --
>> Jim Jagielski
>> VP Legal Affairs

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message