You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@kylin.apache.org by Luke Han <lu...@apache.org> on 2016/11/24 14:26:17 UTC
Fwd: JSON License and Apache Projects
Dear community,
We have informed there's JSON license issue which every project has to
resolve it.
Please help to double check if our project directly depends on that
one, and if our dependencies rely on it.
Let's try to upgrade/replace any library to one without such issue in
our coming releases.
More detail, please check below mail from legal.
Thanks.
Luke
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:08 PM
Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Fwd: JSON License and Apache Projects
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
Apache legal have decided that the JSON license is now category X (i.e. we can’t use it). This is a reverse from previous guidance. I don’t believe that we use (directly or indirectly) any JSON-licensed components, but if we do, please speak up and log an issue.
Julian
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>
> Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 10:08 PM
> Subject: JSON License and Apache Projects
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org