+1 to remove it. It's a small change and dose not hurt any critical code. 2016-11-23 8:42 GMT+08:00 Jungtaek Lim <kabh...@gmail.com>:
> +1 to remove it. Removing twitter4j example is not a big deal for me. > > - Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > > 2016년 11월 23일 (수) 오전 6:32, Bobby Evans <ev...@yahoo-inc.com.invalid>님이 작성: > > > If it is just one file and it is an example I would say lets remove it. > > If we are worried about it we could add in a pointer to an older release > as > > an example with a big warning about the license. > > > > > > - Bobby > > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016, 3:13:14 PM CST, P. Taylor Goetz < > > ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote:The ASF recently made the determination that > the > > org.json license is category x, meaning projects can’t release code that > > depends on it (the short reason is the license has a “no evil” clause > that > > is inappropriate for a license). > > > > Storm is largely unaffected since we use json-simple or Jackson in most > > places (we got off lucky, there are some other projects that are facing a > > world of hurt). However, the twitter4j library directly includes the > > org.json which makes that library category x as well. The only place the > > twitter4j dependency is used is in the `PrintSampleStream` example in > > storm-starter. Because of this, we can’t release. > > > > There’s an ongoing discussion on legal-discuss@ talking about setting a > > grace period for removing that dependency. That would allow projects to > > release with the dependency up to a cut-off date. There’s no decision yet > > as to what the date would be, but there appears to be momentum for the > > license to be “grandfathered” for a period. The two dates mentioned so > far > > are 12/31/16 and 6/1/17. > > > > There’s also an effort to get the twitter4j to solve the issue by > > switching parsers. > > > > There are a number of approaches we could take, the simplest being to > just > > remove that example. But until the twitter4j library is fixed, or a > policy > > decision is reached regarding the grace period, we can’t release. > > > > What are others’ opinions on addressing this? > > > > I’m leaning toward just removing the code for now. It’s a very small > > amount of non-critical code, and could always be brought back if the > > situation changes. > > > > -Taylor > > >
