You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> on 2016/11/03 16:44:37 UTC
JSON.org license is now Category X
The JSON.org license (http://www.json.org/license.html) was just
rescheduled as Category X.
I did a quick check and do not believe we have any exposure.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: JSON.org license is now Category X
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
Okay, I'll add them to my list for the evening.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Andrew Purtell
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have not raised it.
>
>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up Andrew!
>>
>> Has the Hadoop PMC already been notified?
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hadoop has some exposure, at least at test scope, for both branch-2 and
>>> trunk:
>>>
>>> [INFO] | +- com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:jar:1.19:provided
>>> [INFO] | | | +- net.minidev:json-smart:jar:1.1.1:compile
>>> [INFO] | | \- org.skyscreamer:jsonassert:jar:1.3.0:test (version managed
>>> from 1.2.3)
>>> [INFO] | | \- *org.json:json:jar:20090211:test*
>>>
>>> Doesn't present a problem for us in either our source or binary artifacts,
>>> but I'd expect them to clean this up (eventually) so accidents don't happen
>>> in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The JSON.org license (http://www.json.org/license.html) was just
>>>> rescheduled as Category X.
>>>>
>>>> I did a quick check and do not believe we have any exposure.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Andy
>>>>
>>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>>> (via Tom White)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
Re: JSON.org license is now Category X
Posted by Andrew Purtell <an...@gmail.com>.
I have not raised it.
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the heads up Andrew!
>
> Has the Hadoop PMC already been notified?
>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hadoop has some exposure, at least at test scope, for both branch-2 and
>> trunk:
>>
>> [INFO] | +- com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:jar:1.19:provided
>> [INFO] | | | +- net.minidev:json-smart:jar:1.1.1:compile
>> [INFO] | | \- org.skyscreamer:jsonassert:jar:1.3.0:test (version managed
>> from 1.2.3)
>> [INFO] | | \- *org.json:json:jar:20090211:test*
>>
>> Doesn't present a problem for us in either our source or binary artifacts,
>> but I'd expect them to clean this up (eventually) so accidents don't happen
>> in the future.
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The JSON.org license (http://www.json.org/license.html) was just
>>> rescheduled as Category X.
>>>
>>> I did a quick check and do not believe we have any exposure.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> - Andy
>>>
>>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>>> (via Tom White)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
Re: JSON.org license is now Category X
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the heads up Andrew!
Has the Hadoop PMC already been notified?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hadoop has some exposure, at least at test scope, for both branch-2 and
> trunk:
>
> [INFO] | +- com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:jar:1.19:provided
> [INFO] | | | +- net.minidev:json-smart:jar:1.1.1:compile
> [INFO] | | \- org.skyscreamer:jsonassert:jar:1.3.0:test (version managed
> from 1.2.3)
> [INFO] | | \- *org.json:json:jar:20090211:test*
>
> Doesn't present a problem for us in either our source or binary artifacts,
> but I'd expect them to clean this up (eventually) so accidents don't happen
> in the future.
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> The JSON.org license (http://www.json.org/license.html) was just
>> rescheduled as Category X.
>>
>> I did a quick check and do not believe we have any exposure.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
Re: JSON.org license is now Category X
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Hadoop has some exposure, at least at test scope, for both branch-2 and
trunk:
[INFO] | +- com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:jar:1.19:provided
[INFO] | | | +- net.minidev:json-smart:jar:1.1.1:compile
[INFO] | | \- org.skyscreamer:jsonassert:jar:1.3.0:test (version managed
from 1.2.3)
[INFO] | | \- *org.json:json:jar:20090211:test*
Doesn't present a problem for us in either our source or binary artifacts,
but I'd expect them to clean this up (eventually) so accidents don't happen
in the future.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> The JSON.org license (http://www.json.org/license.html) was just
> rescheduled as Category X.
>
> I did a quick check and do not believe we have any exposure.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)