I had never heard of that project. I am going to have to check that out! All of my projects use GSON these days, but I'd rather use an ASF project if possible. Thanks for the plug!
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 8:16 PM James Bognar <james.bog...@salesforce.com> 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 <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The VP Legal for Apache has determined that the JSON processing library > > from json.org <https://github.com/stleary/JSON-java> 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 json.org dependency was OK to use. > > > > Incubator projects that are currently using the json.org 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 <https://github.com/yusuke/twitter4j/pull/254>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 json.org) > > > > 3) replace the json.org artifact with a compatible one that is open > > source. > > I have created and published an artifact based on clean-room Android code > > <https://github.com/tdunning/open-json> that replicates the most > important > > parts of the json.org 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 <j...@apache.org> > > Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 6:10 AM > > Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects > > To: ASF Board <bo...@apache.org> > > > > > > (forwarded from legal-discuss@) > > > > 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 legal-discuss@a.o > > list. > > > > -- > > Jim Jagielski > > VP Legal Affairs > > >
