Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <449BF2EA.9080006@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:55:54 -0700
From: Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue
References: <449B3321.6080701@bristowhill.com> <449B4D5F.8070008@apache.org>
 <639B39E1-ED1D-437C-87DE-267D3EF92791@apache.org>
 <449B7C87.2060100@apache.org> <449BC85D.9050407@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <449BC85D.9050407@pobox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

[snip lot's of interesting legal conversation that I can't keep up with]

To me,  the core question for the Derby community is do we want to  
interject an  extended commercial external dependency  into our release 
cycle.   To that I vote -1.   It seems contrary to the Apache Way and 
all that makes it work:  incremental development, contributor 
independence,  release early often.  It also seems to make this  a legal 
rather than technical forum. 

There are perfectly reasonable technical release alternatives but there 
seem to be legal issue's getting in the way.    I suggest the lawyers  
take this off line, and find a solution so Derby can release with the 
implementation based on the draft and subject to change.  The lawyers on 
both sides of the table  seem to work at the same place, so  I am sure  
negotiations can't be too difficult.  If they  are,  then I think Java 
DB will just need to fork of temporarily and sync back up to us when 
ready to play again the Apache Way.

10.2 has already been far too long of a release cycle.   In large part 
the delays already are related to this legal issue and I think we need 
to stop it.  I seen 10.2  as our *real* graduation from incubation:  
Will we as a community be able push out a real  Apache feature release 
together and feel like we did it the Apache Way?   Whatever precedents 
we set this time we should be willing to carry forward and  this seems 
like a bad one to me.

Kathey