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: 64.74.244.71 is neither permitted nor
 denied by domain of geir@pobox.com)
Message-ID: <449C5A04.9030401@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:15:48 -0400
From: Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com>
Reply-To: geir@pobox.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue
References: <449B3321.6080701@bristowhill.com>
	 <449C1D6D.1040706@bristowhill.com>
	 <54ac72d70606231037h7f91fb89l268c287769a8bc32@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449C2D4E.3040404@sun.com>
	 <54ac72d70606231128p5323359dg667a67bb48c71a14@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449C3CF8.1020003@pobox.com>
	 <54ac72d70606231335n31efb601hb618afe6224404c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449C51B1.3030305@apache.org>
	 <54ac72d70606231352s4a76a948r1dd88eec6f80cf0a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <449C563E.3090809@apache.org>
 <54ac72d70606231411h77f022b1mae98c477abd046a5@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54ac72d70606231411h77f022b1mae98c477abd046a5@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


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
> 
>