db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:52:38 GMT
Update - a slight modification to #1 would be for the upcoming proposed
final draft to be under the new license.  (Source of this suggestion
shall remain nameless)  That way no unnatural acts have to be done to an
already-released draft.

geir


Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
> <snipped interesting stuff to show just the end solution>
> 
>> While I'd just chuck JDBC4 myself, that doesn't work for Sun.  So I did
>> come up with one solution :
>>
>> 1) Have Sun change the draft spec license for 221 from the current to
>> the new one that allows distribution with appropriate warning markings.
>>  I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP.
>>
>> 2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is
>> actually an implementation of JDBC.  Derby is a relational database that
>> among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to
>> be DBC4.
>>
>> 3)  Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community.
>> Make people happy.  Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage,
>> treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine.  (And put a note in the release
>> notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever
>> the new draft spec license requires.)
>>
>> 4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the
>> release notes.
>>
>> I think in this way, everyone is satisfied.  The ASF is following the
>> letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release
>> can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have
>> to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production
>> version", etc.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> +1
> 
>  -jean
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message