db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: Proposed Solutoin ( Was Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue)
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:59:11 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 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.

Whatever works for both Apache and Sun is terrific.


> 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.
>> -jean

View raw message