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: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue
Date Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:12:08 GMT


Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
>> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as
>> > creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the
>> > idea that we couldn't publish a GA version of Derby that had JDBC 4.0
>> > bits in it. Although it appears we've now determined that Derby has no
>> > obligations with regard to these agreements as to when it can do a
>> > release.
>>
>> I must have missed that, when was that detemrined?
> 
> In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that
> Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected
> by the JSPA.

The key is #1.  Get it so that you can actually distribute an impl w/
proper labeling, and then consider the JDBC4 functionality just one
minor feature in a much bigger codebase.

Then, since Derby isn't an implementation of JDBC4, but rather it's
driver is, Derby doesn't have to be labeled according to the JDBC4 spec
license terms.  Just the driver does.

So Derby is a GA, a minor feature (JDBC4) isn't, it's still a feature,
so it can be updated w/o a dot-version uptick...

> 
> Geir also said that as far as the copyright claims in the spec
> evaluation license were not of consequence for us.
> 
> From:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200606.mbox/%3c449BCE21.2000207@pobox.com%3e
> 
> 
> "The Apache License is the only copyright license on the code for
> downstream licensees.  Nothing else - Sun's weird theories about spec
> copyright notwithstanding."

I think I said they were of no consequence to downstream licensees -
they are only accepting the terms of the Apache license.

geir

Mime
View raw message