You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sling.apache.org by Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk> on 2012/03/13 02:52:56 UTC
Json.org license
Hi,
I saw this on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/#!/postwait/status/179292171533430785
see https://github.com/apache/sling/blob/trunk/bundles/commons/json/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/commons/json/JSONObject.java
The license is MIT but contains an additional clause:
"The software shall be used for good, not evil."
Which is hard to comply with since there is no legal definition of
"good" or "evil" or where the boundary is.
Do we need to do anything ?
Ian
Re: Json.org license
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk> wrote:
> ...It might be worth re-taking the code from Adbera which, based on the
> information in the thread(s) came, from a version that did not contain
> the Good/Evil statement.
>
> WDYT? I am happy to do the leg work....
Note that our version has some customizations, see SLING-485.
-Bertrand
Re: Json.org license
Posted by Ian Boston <ie...@tfd.co.uk>.
On 13 March 2012 18:32, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 13.03.2012 um 02:52 schrieb Ian Boston:
>
>> Hi,
>> I saw this on Twitter.
>> https://twitter.com/#!/postwait/status/179292171533430785
>>
>>
>> see https://github.com/apache/sling/blob/trunk/bundles/commons/json/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/commons/json/JSONObject.java
>>
>> The license is MIT but contains an additional clause:
>>
>> "The software shall be used for good, not evil."
>>
>> Which is hard to comply with since there is no legal definition of
>> "good" or "evil" or where the boundary is.
>
> It has been discussed on legal-discuss [1], [2] and there is even a resolution on that particular library [3]. So we can assume this to be ok for our purposes.
It might be worth re-taking the code from Adbera which, based on the
information in the thread(s) came, from a version that did not contain
the Good/Evil statement.
WDYT? I am happy to do the leg work.
I hear what was said by Jukka and others in [1], however it doesn't
change the fact the license is a legal document and if you gave that
license to many lawyers they will struggle to give you the all clear.
IANAL, but dont want to have a conversation like that.
Ian
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/gglluph3ifuyqiwq
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/rlhpmrkv24p5247m
> [3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json
Re: Json.org license
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi,
Am 13.03.2012 um 02:52 schrieb Ian Boston:
> Hi,
> I saw this on Twitter.
> https://twitter.com/#!/postwait/status/179292171533430785
>
>
> see https://github.com/apache/sling/blob/trunk/bundles/commons/json/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/commons/json/JSONObject.java
>
> The license is MIT but contains an additional clause:
>
> "The software shall be used for good, not evil."
>
> Which is hard to comply with since there is no legal definition of
> "good" or "evil" or where the boundary is.
It has been discussed on legal-discuss [1], [2] and there is even a resolution on that particular library [3]. So we can assume this to be ok for our purposes.
Regards
Felix
[1] http://markmail.org/message/gglluph3ifuyqiwq
[2] http://markmail.org/message/rlhpmrkv24p5247m
[3] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#json