You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Ted Dunning <td...@apache.org> on 2016/10/27 17:49:27 UTC
JSON license again
I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the json.org
license is a Category A license.
The json.org version of the BSD license is problematic because it imposes
constraints on the downstream consumer by including a constraint on field
of endeavor that the software "not be used for evil". Debian and Google,
for instance, won't consume anything with this license:
https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those dependencies
from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the json.org license
isn't acceptable to those customers.
To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree with
those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that myself,
but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not evil would
make it impossible to get anything done.
I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the non-free
nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation of the core
part of the library available from the Android team
<https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> so
removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine
approach.
A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following Apache
projects are affected
Tika
Hive
Wink
possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
Shindig
Spark (transitive from Hive)
Giraph
Rave
Felix
Tuscany
Tinkerpop
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
wrote:
> But do we have a decision now ? And thus update the resolved page ?
>
I think we have consensus, but we haven't really formally recorded that
consensus.
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Hi
Reaching out is great and good. I already have kicked discussions with Felix and Sling.
But do we have a decision now ? And thus update the resolved page ?
For now the JSON license is an explicit exception outside of the normal A, B, X lists.
Thanks
Felix
> Am 02.11.2016 um 01:48 schrieb Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>:
>
> Hi,
>
> We already have enough evil in our code bases [1] :-)
>
> Looks like there is probably a larger number of projects than expected that do currently use code under that license [2].
>
> Should someone reach out to those projects? Incubating projects for instance may be unaware of this change in policy.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://github.com/search?p=8&q=org%3Aapache+evil&type=Code
> 2. https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q=org%3Aapache+%22Good+not+Evil%22&type=Code
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Looks like there is probably a larger number of projects than expected
> that do currently use code under that license [2].
>
> Should someone reach out to those projects? Incubating projects for
> instance may be unaware of this change in policy.
>
Yes. We need to reach out.
I plan to reach out to the Hive community with a patch.
I will report other outreach as I get to it. Right now I am on a heinous
trip and have little time.
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
We already have enough evil in our code bases [1] :-)
Looks like there is probably a larger number of projects than expected that do currently use code under that license [2].
Should someone reach out to those projects? Incubating projects for instance may be unaware of this change in policy.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github.com/search?p=8&q=org%3Aapache+evil&type=Code
2. https://github.com/search?utf8=✓&q=org%3Aapache+%22Good+not+Evil%22&type=Code
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1000.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:38 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Apache ActiveMQ Artemis was using json until feedback from debian, and we
> converted away. I do agree, the ASF should treat this as a Cat X license
> unless we can petition the makes of json.org to relicense in a traditional
> BSD license.
>
> For the record, we switched to Apache Johnzon for the equivalent.
>
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM Ted Dunning <td...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
>> institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the json.org
>> license is a Category A license.
>>
>> The json.org version of the BSD license is problematic because it imposes
>> constraints on the downstream consumer by including a constraint on field of
>> endeavor that the software "not be used for evil". Debian and Google, for
>> instance, won't consume anything with this license:
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
>> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
>>
>> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
>> that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
>> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
>>
>> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
>> not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those dependencies
>> from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the json.org license
>> isn't acceptable to those customers.
>>
>> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
>> hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
>> consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree with
>> those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that myself, but
>> having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not evil would make it
>> impossible to get anything done.
>>
>> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the
>> non-free nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation of
>> the core part of the library available from the Android team so removing the
>> dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine approach.
>>
>> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following Apache
>> projects are affected
>>
>> Tika
>> Hive
>> Wink
>> possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
>> Shindig
>> Spark (transitive from Hive)
>> Giraph
>> Rave
>> Felix
>> Tuscany
>> Tinkerpop
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Clebert Suconic
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Chris,
I just pulled down the latest version of the android org.json package and
spent some time building a pom, updating all of the tests to junit 4
stylistics and resolving all of the warnings in IDEA.
I will be putting out a release as soon as I can (which will be a bit
slow). As soon as I get time after that, I will be putting up a patch for a
few of the projects that can use this new package. I am pretty sure that
Hive and a few others, for instance, can adapt with just a change to the
pom.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Chris Burroughs <ch...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 11/05/2016 03:11 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Is the Android version available from Maven?
>
> https://github.com/addthis/maljson
>
> For a previous project I extracted the Android cleanroom implementation
> into a stand alone package. Some minor modifications to be compatible
> with an ancient internal fork of org.json were needed (see README), but
> it is otherwise extremely close to org.json's behavior.
>
> Having lost far to many hours to the org.json license, I hope this can
> save someone else some time. If you need exactly the Android cleanroom
> without modification, I do not recall the extraction being difficult.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Chris Burroughs <ch...@gmail.com>.
On 11/05/2016 03:11 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Is the Android version available from Maven?
https://github.com/addthis/maljson
For a previous project I extracted the Android cleanroom implementation
into a stand alone package. Some minor modifications to be compatible
with an ancient internal fork of org.json were needed (see README), but
it is otherwise extremely close to org.json's behavior.
Having lost far to many hours to the org.json license, I hope this can
save someone else some time. If you need exactly the Android cleanroom
without modification, I do not recall the extraction being difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 1:53 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I assume it would be easy to create a pom which strips it down to just
> the json package.
>
It definitely would be.
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>.
Henri Yandell wrote
> Is the Android version available from Maven?
Someone mentioned "org.robolectric:android-all" containing that stuff,
but unfortunately with *a lot* of other stuff.
I assume it would be easy to create a pom which strips it down to just
the json package.
Carsten
>
> I suspect most of our uses could be fixed via pom.xml updates to point
> to a new dependency.
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bdelacretaz@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament
> <johndament@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> > ...the ASF should treat this as a Cat X license
> > unless we can petition the makes of json.org <http://json.org> to relicense in a traditional
> > BSD license....
>
> As a sidenote, https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> <https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil> has
> information about alternatives, and links to a petition which
> apparently only has 35 supporters so far.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>
>
>
--
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziegeler@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Is the Android version available from Maven?
I suspect most of our uses could be fixed via pom.xml updates to point to a
new dependency.
Hen
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...the ASF should treat this as a Cat X license
> > unless we can petition the makes of json.org to relicense in a
> traditional
> > BSD license....
>
> As a sidenote, https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil has
> information about alternatives, and links to a petition which
> apparently only has 35 supporters so far.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Wheeler, David A <dw...@ida.org> wrote:
>... I think many more people care than this petition would indicate...
My last successful petition [1] was a blogpost + twitter hash tag,
that might be a more efficient way of hearing those voices.
-Bertrand
[1] https://grep.codeconsult.ch/2010/07/21/dear-oracle-can-we-have-our-nice-javadoc-urls-back/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: JSON license again
Posted by "Wheeler, David A" <dw...@ida.org>.
FWIW, I agree with Daniel Shahaf:
> The controversy isn't about ethics, it's about law.
> Someone could sue you alleging that your actions were evil, even if in your eyes they were not evil.
I completely agree. What is evil to one is not evil to another.
Ambiguous text like this is unacceptable in a license.
Bertrand Delacretaz:
> As a sidenote, https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil has information
> about alternatives, and links to a petition which apparently only has 35
> supporters so far.
That petition is closed, and I suspect most people who would have signed it never heard of it.
I think many more people care than this petition would indicate.
--- David A. Wheeler
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...the ASF should treat this as a Cat X license
> unless we can petition the makes of json.org to relicense in a traditional
> BSD license....
As a sidenote, https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil has
information about alternatives, and links to a petition which
apparently only has 35 supporters so far.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Apache ActiveMQ Artemis was using json until feedback from debian, and we
converted away. I do agree, the ASF should treat this as a Cat X license
unless we can petition the makes of json.org to relicense in a traditional
BSD license.
For the record, we switched to Apache Johnzon for the equivalent.
John
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:50 PM Ted Dunning <td...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
> institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the
> json.org license is a Category A license.
>
> The json.org version of the BSD license is problematic because it imposes
> constraints on the downstream consumer by including a constraint on field
> of endeavor that the software "not be used for evil". Debian and Google,
> for instance, won't consume anything with this license:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
>
> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
> that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
>
> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
> not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those dependencies
> from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the json.org license
> isn't acceptable to those customers.
>
> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
> hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
> consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree with
> those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that myself,
> but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not evil would
> make it impossible to get anything done.
>
> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the
> non-free nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation of
> the core part of the library available from the Android team
> <https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> so
> removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine
> approach.
>
> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following Apache
> projects are affected
>
> Tika
> Hive
> Wink
> possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
> Shindig
> Spark (transitive from Hive)
> Giraph
> Rave
> Felix
> Tuscany
> Tinkerpop
>
>
>
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@apache.org>.
Done.
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Yep.
> > On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Does that read „it is CatX“ ?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Felix
> >
> >> Am 03.11.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> In fact, I will go further: w/ my VP Legal hat on, I say
> >> that the license is NOT CatA and is NOT approved.
> >>
> >>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
> >>> license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
> >>> and has no place as CatA.
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
This change in policy made the news!
"7 notable legal developments in open source in 2016"
https://opensource.com/article/17/1/yearbook-7-notable-legal-developments-2016
Jim Jagielski wrote on 11/3/16 11:20 AM:
> Yep.
>> On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does that read \u201eit is CatX\u201c ?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Felix
>>
>>> Am 03.11.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> In fact, I will go further: w/ my VP Legal hat on, I say
>>> that the license is NOT CatA and is NOT approved.
>>>
>>>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
>>>> license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
>>>> and has no place as CatA.
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Yep.
> On Nov 3, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> Does that read „it is CatX“ ?
>
> Thanks
> Felix
>
>> Am 03.11.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>:
>>
>> In fact, I will go further: w/ my VP Legal hat on, I say
>> that the license is NOT CatA and is NOT approved.
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
>>> license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
>>> and has no place as CatA.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com>.
Does that read „it is CatX“ ?
Thanks
Felix
> Am 03.11.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>:
>
> In fact, I will go further: w/ my VP Legal hat on, I say
> that the license is NOT CatA and is NOT approved.
>
>> On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>> IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
>> license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
>> and has no place as CatA.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
In fact, I will go further: w/ my VP Legal hat on, I say
that the license is NOT CatA and is NOT approved.
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>
> IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
> license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
> and has no place as CatA.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
IMO, JSON should be moved. It is not a valid FSF nor OSI
license. As such, it is not a true "open source" license
and has no place as CatA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>
wrote:
> Konstantin Boudnik wrote on Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:03:27 -0700:
> > 'no-evil' isn't a joke, really. It is an ethical principle first and
> > foremost. I guess I am missing why this is considered to be
> > a 'constraint' especially by open minded open-source developers.
>
> The controversy isn't about ethics, it's about law. Someone could sue
> you alleging that your actions were evil, even if in your eyes they were
> not evil.
>
OR even worse, your own corporate lawyers could ask you for an ISO-9001
process with ISO-12207 certification for guaranteeing that your processes
do no evil and documenting all of your no-evil maintenance processes.
You would then point out that such absurd requirements are themselves evil.
Which would mean that you have already breached the license before even
using the software.
(and yes, this is a joke, but no, it isn't fiction)
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Konstantin Boudnik wrote on Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 03:03:27 -0700:
> 'no-evil' isn't a joke, really. It is an ethical principle first and
> foremost. I guess I am missing why this is considered to be
> a 'constraint' especially by open minded open-source developers.
The controversy isn't about ethics, it's about law. Someone could sue
you alleging that your actions were evil, even if in your eyes they were
not evil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
If ASF considers 'no-evil' clause to be legally acceptable, I don't see any
reason to make the recommendation to the projects to abstain from the use of
JSON licenced libraries. 'no-evil' isn't a joke, really. It is an ethical
principle first and foremost. I guess I am missing why this is considered to
be a 'constraint' especially by open minded open-source developers. But IANAL
of course. Well, this
http://dev.hasenj.org/post/3272592502/ibm-and-its-minions
says it better than I ever would ;)
Just my $0.02
Cos
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:49AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
> institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the json.org
> license is a Category A license.
>
> The json.org version of the BSD license is problematic because it imposes
> constraints on the downstream consumer by including a constraint on field
> of endeavor that the software "not be used for evil". Debian and Google,
> for instance, won't consume anything with this license:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
>
> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
> that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
>
> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
> not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those dependencies
> from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the json.org license
> isn't acceptable to those customers.
>
> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
> hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
> consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree with
> those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that myself,
> but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not evil would
> make it impossible to get anything done.
>
> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the non-free
> nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation of the core
> part of the library available from the Android team
> <https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> so
> removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine
> approach.
>
> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following Apache
> projects are affected
>
> Tika
> Hive
> Wink
> possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
> Shindig
> Spark (transitive from Hive)
> Giraph
> Rave
> Felix
> Tuscany
> Tinkerpop
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+1 for taking the no-evil serious. It’s a bad joke, if any…
Side note: there is an inhouse project called Apache Johnzon which is a Java JSON-P implementation and around 100kB in size.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 27.10.2016 um 19:49 schrieb Ted Dunning <td...@apache.org>:
>
>
> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the json.org license is a Category A license.
>
> The json.org version of the BSD license is problematic because it imposes constraints on the downstream consumer by including a constraint on field of endeavor that the software "not be used for evil". Debian and Google, for instance, won't consume anything with this license:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
>
> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
>
> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those dependencies from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the json.org license isn't acceptable to those customers.
>
> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree with those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that myself, but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not evil would make it impossible to get anything done.
>
> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the non-free nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation of the core part of the library available from the Android team so removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine approach.
>
> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following Apache projects are affected
>
> Tika
> Hive
> Wink
> possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
> Shindig
> Spark (transitive from Hive)
> Giraph
> Rave
> Felix
> Tuscany
> Tinkerpop
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: JSON license again
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
+1 to moving it out of Category A.
The point isn't evil or lack thereof, the point is that it places
additional restrictions beyond the Apache license on downstream
redistributors that are affecting some of our users. Given that it
seems there are ample reasonably equivalent and nicely licensed
alternatives, I agree with Ted on this one.
http://johnzon.apache.org/
- Shane
Ted Dunning wrote on 10/27/16 1:49 PM:
>
> I know that this has been brought up, but I think that we have
> institutionalized an erroneous decision. That decision is that the
> json.org <http://json.org> license is a Category A license.
>
> The json.org <http://json.org> version of the BSD license is problematic
> because it imposes constraints on the downstream consumer by including a
> constraint on field of endeavor that the software "not be used for
> evil". Debian and Google, for instance, won't consume anything with this
> license:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/jsonevil
> https://www.cnet.com/news/dont-be-evil-google-spurns-no-evil-software/
>
> Apache has codified a policy that is apparently based on a determination
> that the no-evil clause was "clearly a joke".
>
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#json
> https://s.apache.org/json-license-ok
>
> At work, we now have more than one customer whose legal team has decided
> not to get the joke. I will be filing patches to remove those
> dependencies from Hive and HCatalog, but the point remains that the
> json.org <http://json.org> license isn't acceptable to those customers.
>
> To me, all of this clearly shows that the json license is substantially
> hindering downstream adoption due to a perception by those downstream
> consumers that you can't put a joke into a license. I, frankly, agree
> with those folks. Not doing evil is a good thing and I try to do that
> myself, but having to get a legal opinion that everything I do is not
> evil would make it impossible to get anything done.
>
> I think that this license should be moved to category X due to the
> non-free nature of the license. There is a clean-room reimplementation
> of the core part of the library available from the Android team
> <https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html> so
> removing the dependency. Using Jackson or Gson instead is another fine
> approach.
>
> A quick look at maven central indicates that at least the following
> Apache projects are affected
>
> Tika
> Hive
> Wink
> possibly Asterixdb (because hyracks had this dependency)
> Shindig
> Spark (transitive from Hive)
> Giraph
> Rave
> Felix
> Tuscany
> Tinkerpop
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org