db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Van Couvering <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:40:53 GMT
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> Anyway, what's the trigger for breaching the contract here? If it's
> 'creation' alone, then rolling that release candidate surely qualifies
> as as creation. If it's 'creation and distribution,' well, is posting
> the release candidate in a public forum and on a public website (like
> one would have to do to vote on it) considered distribution in this
> case? I have no idea, because i'm not a lawyer.

I don't either.  I will try and get someone here to discuss this with 
the JCP lawyers and try and get some clarification about 'creation' vs. 
'creation and distribution'.  I can't see how you can be in trouble for 
creating a set of bits that nobody has access to, but IANAL.

I guess you have somewhat answered my question from my other email: you 
must, even temporarily, make the official GA bits available for 
download, just so we can vote on the release.

Could we remove the download once it's voted on, at least to keep the 
window of vulnerability to a minimum?  I'm not saying that would satisfy 
the lawyers, but I'd like to know what is possible before we talk to them.

How do we handle this normally, if you create a release candidate with 
the GA bit set, and then we reject the release.  Don't we have the same 
problem already, with people getting access to a release that looks and 
smells like an official Apache release but actually isn't?

> 
> Or maybe ask Geir, since he's VP of Java Community Process for the
> Apache Software Foundation, since similar instances may have come up
> fairly recently. [3]
> 

Even if we did ask Geir, he's not the last word on it. I'd rather hear 
it from the horse's mouth.  I or someone else will get back to you.

Thanks for all your input, and your research!

> andrew
> 
> p.s. I'm assuming there's no TCK for JSR-221.

P.S. I am pretty sure there is, but as I understand it, it just 
validates the interfaces are there.  It's part of the overall TCK for 
Java SE 6, is my understanding.  I am sure Lance will be happy to clarify.

> 
> [1] http://www.jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf
> [2] http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/announce/2004/JCP2.6.html
> [3] 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2005/board_minutes_2005_12_21.txt 
> 
> (search for "SUN ISSUES")

Mime
View raw message