FYI: I picked this up.

- Issue: STORM-2276 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STORM-2276>
- PR for master: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1858
- PR for 1.x branch: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1859
- PR for 1.0.x branch: https://github.com/apache/storm/pull/1860

Let's review and handle this soon.

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2016년 11월 23일 (수) 오전 10:54, Xin Wang <[email protected]>님이 작성:

> +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 <[email protected]>:
>
> > +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 <[email protected]>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 <
> > > [email protected]> 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
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to