Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [incubation] JSON library questions

Thank you for putting me in the loop Rémi…

 

Dear Wayne,

 

Thank you for the response, however, your description of our purpose is not exact : We don’t want to apply the approved version of the license to a newer version of the library, we want, pursuant to the license previously approved by the Eclipse foundation, to make one change in the source code avoiding us to make a thousand others in the rest of our code. The fact that this same single modification was part of the multiple ones made when the library was updated does not mean in any way that we are using one of those newer versions that were not approved, it just means that it was and it is still an appropriate change.

 

Christophe Munilla

 

De : incubation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:incubation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] De la part de Rémi Druilhe
Envoyé : jeudi 18 mai 2017 10:01
À : Discussions for new Eclipse projects <incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Re: [incubation] JSON library questions

 

I am adding my colleague Christophe that just subscribed to the mailing list into the discussion.


--
Rémi DRUILHE

 

2017-05-17 18:13 GMT+02:00 wayne beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

The modified license applies only to the specific version indicated in the CQ. The modified license does not apply to the newer versions of the library, so you can't replace what's been approved in the CQ with something more recent. This is a pretty good example of antagonistic licensing.

 

You can include the approved version of the library in your project repository (since the CQ is marked for sourceAndBinary distribution), and you can make changes, but I recommend against getting into a situation where you have to maintain a fork.

 

Wayne

 

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Rémi Druilhe <remi.druilhe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

When you look at the header file of the classes of the library (the Eclipse version), it is mentioned that we are allowed to modify the files but the header must remain like this. I am not an IP expert but I can't see where it is mentioned that once we modify it, we need to switch back to the previous license.

Thus, why can't we provide new versions of this library with this new "license"?

We could adopt alternatives libraries, but it needs lots of refactor from our side and I'd like to avoid it as much as possible. Even using this old version requires lots of refactor to be compliant with the old API.

--
Rémi DRUILHE

 

2017-05-16 21:03 GMT+02:00 Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

org.gson is in Orbit. It’s what we use in CDT.

 

From: <incubation-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "werner.keil@xxxxxxx" <werner.keil@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Discussions for new Eclipse projects <incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 2:49 PM
To: Discussions for new Eclipse projects <incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx>


Subject: Re: [incubation] JSON library questions

 

Why not use a JSON Standard like JSON-P? It’ll be required by other Eclipse Projects like MicroProfile, too 😉

 

Werner

 

From: wayne beaton
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 20:44
To: Discussions for new Eclipse projects
Subject: Re: [incubation] JSON library questions

 

It's probably better to just avoid that library altogether. Our IP Team contacted the author some time ago to get a special license for Eclipse projects to use a specific version, but we don't feel that that license applies to subsequent versions. FWIW, the JSON license is problematic for other consumers (the EF isn't alone in having a problem with it). That you can't keep up-to-date with patches is going to be a long term problem. Have you considered adopting an alternative?

 

This library is already available in bundle form in an old drop of Orbit (I see it in a 2012 build [1]). Can you pull the bundle from there?

 

Wayne

 

 

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Rémi Druilhe <remi.druilhe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear mailing list,

We are using the JSON library with the following maven coordinate: org.json:json:20140107

Due to its specific license, this dependency can not be validated by the EMO team. The EMO team recommands to use the one provided by the CQ3603. We agreed.

However, because this dependency is specific to Eclipse (change of the license for Eclipse), can we integrate its source code direclty into our project as a package in one of the bundles. Thus the library will be mixed with our owns classes. If yes, are we allowed to modify it to avoid refactoring all our source code?

Thanks,

 

Best regards.

--
Rémi DRUILHE


_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation



 

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation

 


_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation

 


_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation



 

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation


_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation

 


Back to the top