You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@abdera.apache.org by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> on 2006/11/18 17:15:41 UTC
JSON license headers
While playing around with the RAT tool I noticed that some of the
files in the JSON source don't have license headers. Since this is
third party code I didn't want to just add them, but if whoever got
the JSON guy to relicense his code could get him to fix
JSONException.java, JSONString.java and Test.java so we can update our
copies, that would be great.
-garrett
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
I sometimes wonder about Maven..... just wonder.
-Elias
Stephen Duncan wrote:
> The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
> Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
> could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
>> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
>> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
>> can go
>> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
>> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
>> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
>> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
>> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
>> > get the license headers added to these three files.
>> >
>> > thoughts?
>>
>> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
>> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
>> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
>> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>>
>> -garrett
>>
>
>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>.
Not helpful but it's not a problem. After I make the change to the ant
build tomorrow we will not be shipping the json source, nor will the
source be in our svn.
- James
Elias Torres wrote:
> I mailed Douglas Crockford, here's his response re: missing license info
> for: JSONException.java, JSONString.java and Test.java.
>
> """There's nothing interesting in either of those files.
> One is just an interface, the other is a textbook
> exception. There is no IP there to make a claim about.
>
> The test file is just a test file. It is not licensed."""
>
> Does that help?
>
> -Elias
>
> James M Snell wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> As far as I can tell from my limited maven knowledge, this looks fine.
>> I'll make corresponding changes to the Ant build tomorrow and make it so
>> that we're not actually shipping the json code with the source image.
>>
>> - James
>>
>> Stephen Duncan wrote:
>>> Ok. I've attached a potential patch for the json-dependency pom that
>>> would download that zip and use it as a source. The ant task portion
>>> could be changed to call the ant task and point to a separate
>>> build.xml as an alternative.
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>>
>>> On 11/20/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Maybe... I'll try to get Maven to call some Ant script to download
>>>> and extract the sources prior to compiling. I'll let everyone know
>>>> how the experiment goes...
>>>>
>>>> -Stephen
>>>>
>>>> On 11/20/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
>>>>> can shoot for in the near term?
>>>>>
>>>>> - James
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Duncan wrote:
>>>>>> The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
>>>>>> Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
>>>>>> could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Stephen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to
>>>> have the
>>>>>>>> json code in our svn. The source we are using can be
>>>> downloaded from
>>>>>>>> http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
>>>>>>> can go
>>>>>>>> out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
>>>>>>>> optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping
>>>> the source
>>>>>>>> code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
>>>>>>>> dependency rather than such a special case. It should also
>>>> make it
>>>>>>>> possible for us to proceed without having to worry about
>>>> if/when we can
>>>>>>>> get the license headers added to these three files.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
>>>>>>> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download
>>>> whatever's in
>>>>>>> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper
>>>> license...
>>>>>>> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -garrett
>>>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stephen Duncan Jr
>>>> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Index: dependencies/json/pom.xml
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- dependencies/json/pom.xml (revision 475049)
>>> +++ dependencies/json/pom.xml (working copy)
>>> @@ -34,4 +34,29 @@
>>> <developerConnection>scm:svn:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</developerConnection>
>>> <url>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</url>
>>> </scm>
>>> + <build>
>>> + <plugins>
>>> + <plugin>
>>> + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>>> + <artifactId>maven-antrun-plugin</artifactId>
>>> + <executions>
>>> + <execution>
>>> + <phase>generate-sources</phase>
>>> + <configuration>
>>> + <tasks>
>>> + <mkdir dir="${basedir}/target" />
>>> + <get src="http://json.org/java/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" usetimestamp="true"/>
>>> + <unzip src="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java" />
>>> + <move file="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/apache" tofile="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/json" />
>>> + </tasks>
>>> + <sourceRoot>${project.build.directory}/generated-sources/main/java</sourceRoot>
>>> + </configuration>
>>> + <goals>
>>> + <goal>run</goal>
>>> + </goals>
>>> + </execution>
>>> + </executions>
>>> + </plugin>
>>> + </plugins>
>>> + </build>
>>> </project>
>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Elias Torres <el...@torrez.us>.
I mailed Douglas Crockford, here's his response re: missing license info
for: JSONException.java, JSONString.java and Test.java.
"""There's nothing interesting in either of those files.
One is just an interface, the other is a textbook
exception. There is no IP there to make a claim about.
The test file is just a test file. It is not licensed."""
Does that help?
-Elias
James M Snell wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> As far as I can tell from my limited maven knowledge, this looks fine.
> I'll make corresponding changes to the Ant build tomorrow and make it so
> that we're not actually shipping the json code with the source image.
>
> - James
>
> Stephen Duncan wrote:
>> Ok. I've attached a potential patch for the json-dependency pom that
>> would download that zip and use it as a source. The ant task portion
>> could be changed to call the ant task and point to a separate
>> build.xml as an alternative.
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>> On 11/20/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe... I'll try to get Maven to call some Ant script to download
>>> and extract the sources prior to compiling. I'll let everyone know
>>> how the experiment goes...
>>>
>>> -Stephen
>>>
>>> On 11/20/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
>>>> can shoot for in the near term?
>>>>
>>>> - James
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Duncan wrote:
>>>>> The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
>>>>> Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
>>>>> could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Stephen
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to
>>> have the
>>>>>>> json code in our svn. The source we are using can be
>>> downloaded from
>>>>>>> http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
>>>>>> can go
>>>>>>> out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
>>>>>>> optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping
>>> the source
>>>>>>> code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
>>>>>>> dependency rather than such a special case. It should also
>>> make it
>>>>>>> possible for us to proceed without having to worry about
>>> if/when we can
>>>>>>> get the license headers added to these three files.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
>>>>>> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download
>>> whatever's in
>>>>>> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper
>>> license...
>>>>>> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -garrett
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stephen Duncan Jr
>>> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Index: dependencies/json/pom.xml
>> ===================================================================
>> --- dependencies/json/pom.xml (revision 475049)
>> +++ dependencies/json/pom.xml (working copy)
>> @@ -34,4 +34,29 @@
>> <developerConnection>scm:svn:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</developerConnection>
>> <url>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</url>
>> </scm>
>> + <build>
>> + <plugins>
>> + <plugin>
>> + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
>> + <artifactId>maven-antrun-plugin</artifactId>
>> + <executions>
>> + <execution>
>> + <phase>generate-sources</phase>
>> + <configuration>
>> + <tasks>
>> + <mkdir dir="${basedir}/target" />
>> + <get src="http://json.org/java/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" usetimestamp="true"/>
>> + <unzip src="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java" />
>> + <move file="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/apache" tofile="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/json" />
>> + </tasks>
>> + <sourceRoot>${project.build.directory}/generated-sources/main/java</sourceRoot>
>> + </configuration>
>> + <goals>
>> + <goal>run</goal>
>> + </goals>
>> + </execution>
>> + </executions>
>> + </plugin>
>> + </plugins>
>> + </build>
>> </project>
>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>.
Stephen,
As far as I can tell from my limited maven knowledge, this looks fine.
I'll make corresponding changes to the Ant build tomorrow and make it so
that we're not actually shipping the json code with the source image.
- James
Stephen Duncan wrote:
> Ok. I've attached a potential patch for the json-dependency pom that
> would download that zip and use it as a source. The ant task portion
> could be changed to call the ant task and point to a separate
> build.xml as an alternative.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 11/20/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Maybe... I'll try to get Maven to call some Ant script to download
>> and extract the sources prior to compiling. I'll let everyone know
>> how the experiment goes...
>>
>> -Stephen
>>
>> On 11/20/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
>> > can shoot for in the near term?
>> >
>> > - James
>> >
>> > Stephen Duncan wrote:
>> > > The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
>> > > Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
>> > > could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
>> > >
>> > > -Stephen
>> > >
>> > > On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>> > >> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to
>> have the
>> > >> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be
>> downloaded from
>> > >> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
>> > >> can go
>> > >> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
>> > >> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping
>> the source
>> > >> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
>> > >> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also
>> make it
>> > >> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about
>> if/when we can
>> > >> > get the license headers added to these three files.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > thoughts?
>> > >>
>> > >> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
>> > >> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download
>> whatever's in
>> > >> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper
>> license...
>> > >> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>> > >>
>> > >> -garrett
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stephen Duncan Jr
>> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Index: dependencies/json/pom.xml
> ===================================================================
> --- dependencies/json/pom.xml (revision 475049)
> +++ dependencies/json/pom.xml (working copy)
> @@ -34,4 +34,29 @@
> <developerConnection>scm:svn:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</developerConnection>
> <url>http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/abdera/java/trunk/dependencies/json/</url>
> </scm>
> + <build>
> + <plugins>
> + <plugin>
> + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> + <artifactId>maven-antrun-plugin</artifactId>
> + <executions>
> + <execution>
> + <phase>generate-sources</phase>
> + <configuration>
> + <tasks>
> + <mkdir dir="${basedir}/target" />
> + <get src="http://json.org/java/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" usetimestamp="true"/>
> + <unzip src="${basedir}/target/apache.zip" dest="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java" />
> + <move file="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/apache" tofile="${basedir}/target/generated-sources/main/java/json" />
> + </tasks>
> + <sourceRoot>${project.build.directory}/generated-sources/main/java</sourceRoot>
> + </configuration>
> + <goals>
> + <goal>run</goal>
> + </goals>
> + </execution>
> + </executions>
> + </plugin>
> + </plugins>
> + </build>
> </project>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
Ok. I've attached a potential patch for the json-dependency pom that
would download that zip and use it as a source. The ant task portion
could be changed to call the ant task and point to a separate
build.xml as an alternative.
-Stephen
On 11/20/06, Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe... I'll try to get Maven to call some Ant script to download
> and extract the sources prior to compiling. I'll let everyone know
> how the experiment goes...
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 11/20/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
> > can shoot for in the near term?
> >
> > - James
> >
> > Stephen Duncan wrote:
> > > The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
> > > Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
> > > could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
> > >
> > > -Stephen
> > >
> > > On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> > >> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
> > >> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
> > >> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
> > >> can go
> > >> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
> > >> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
> > >> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
> > >> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
> > >> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
> > >> > get the license headers added to these three files.
> > >> >
> > >> > thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
> > >> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
> > >> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
> > >> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
> > >>
> > >> -garrett
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Stephen Duncan Jr
> www.stephenduncanjr.com
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
Maybe... I'll try to get Maven to call some Ant script to download
and extract the sources prior to compiling. I'll let everyone know
how the experiment goes...
-Stephen
On 11/20/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
> can shoot for in the near term?
>
> - James
>
> Stephen Duncan wrote:
> > The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
> > Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
> > could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
> >
> > -Stephen
> >
> > On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
> >> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
> >> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
> >> can go
> >> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
> >> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
> >> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
> >> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
> >> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
> >> > get the license headers added to these three files.
> >> >
> >> > thoughts?
> >>
> >> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
> >> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
> >> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
> >> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
> >>
> >> -garrett
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>.
Hmm... is there a "not quite 'right' but will still work" solution we
can shoot for in the near term?
- James
Stephen Duncan wrote:
> The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
> Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
> could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
>
> -Stephen
>
> On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
>> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
>> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we
>> can go
>> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
>> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
>> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
>> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
>> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
>> > get the license headers added to these three files.
>> >
>> > thoughts?
>>
>> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
>> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
>> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
>> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>>
>> -garrett
>>
>
>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Stephen Duncan <st...@gmail.com>.
The "right" solution, I think, is to get a binary release under the
Apache license published to the central Maven repository, and then it
could be downloaded for use by Ant or by Maven.
-Stephen
On 11/18/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
> > json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
> > http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we can go
> > out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
> > optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
> > code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
> > dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
> > possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
> > get the license headers added to these three files.
> >
> > thoughts?
>
> Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
> the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
> the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
> Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
>
> -garrett
>
--
Stephen Duncan Jr
www.stephenduncanjr.com
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 11/18/06, James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
> json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
> http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we can go
> out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
> optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
> code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
> dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
> possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
> get the license headers added to these three files.
>
> thoughts?
Well, for the ant build we can certainly download it and build it on
the fly, but for maven builds it'll go out and download whatever's in
the maven repositories, which wouldn't be under the proper license...
Not sure what the "right" solution is to that.
-garrett
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>.
You know, I'm actually wondering if it makes sense for us to have the
json code in our svn. The source we are using can be downloaded from
http://json.org/java/apache.zip. Like the other dependencies, we can go
out and grab that as needed during the build. We can also make it
optional to build. I also don't think we should be shipping the source
code for it in our source zip. This will make it just another
dependency rather than such a special case. It should also make it
possible for us to proceed without having to worry about if/when we can
get the license headers added to these three files.
thoughts?
- James
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> While playing around with the RAT tool I noticed that some of the
> files in the JSON source don't have license headers. Since this is
> third party code I didn't want to just add them, but if whoever got
> the JSON guy to relicense his code could get him to fix
> JSONException.java, JSONString.java and Test.java so we can update our
> copies, that would be great.
>
> -garrett
>
Re: JSON license headers
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@gmail.com>.
That would be Elias.
- James
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> While playing around with the RAT tool I noticed that some of the
> files in the JSON source don't have license headers. Since this is
> third party code I didn't want to just add them, but if whoever got
> the JSON guy to relicense his code could get him to fix
> JSONException.java, JSONString.java and Test.java so we can update our
> copies, that would be great.
>
> -garrett
>