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 21:15:48 GMT

Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
>> > 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.
>> I thought Geir's proposed solution was predicated on item 1)
>> Geir wrote:
>> > 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.
>> Until the licence is changed we cannot ship a GA version of Derby with
>> JDBC 4.0 code.
> Then I'm confused, if we're not an implementation, thus not subject to
> section 5 of the terms in the JSPA, and the copyright concerns w/r/t
> the evaluation license are not an issue for us, then why does the spec
> draft license need to change? Can somebody spell that out for me?

Derby isn't an implementation, but there is a small piece that
implements the JDBC4 spec.

> It certainly seems like changing the spec license is the right thing
> to do to make everybody happy. So, can someone from Sun or JCP please
> confirm that the draft spec license will in fact be changed?

I've made the request formally.  As I said in a follow-up, the solution
that will be easier will be a permissive license for the upcoming
proposed final draft.
> I guess that, yes, we still cannot ship a GA version of Derby with the
> JDBC 4 until another draft of the spec is posted with the new license
> attached.
> andrew

View raw message