db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: 10.2 licensing issue
Date Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:28:14 GMT
Wow! Thanks for the update, Rick. I agree that option #1 (release 10.2
without JDBC 4) is best.


Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I must report today that the restrictions imposed by the beta JDK
> license have not been lifted.
> As you know, the JDK 6 beta license requires a disclaimer that bars the
> use of the code for any productive use. This restriction is meant to
> forestall binary incompatibilities with the final, GA version of the
> JDK. These incompatibilities might arise due to late-breaking changes in
> the JDK during its beta cycle. Due to these late-breaking changes,
> applications compiled against earlier, beta versions of the JDK could
> behave erratically when run against the GA JDK.
> Such a disclaimer would need to appear in the NOTICES file of any Derby
> release built using the beta JDK's tools and libraries. This, in turn,
> is unacceptable for GA releases of Derby. Therefore at this time we
> cannot build a Derby release candidate which includes JDBC4
> drivers--today those drivers can only be built using beta tools and
> libraries.  For this reason, we, the Derby community must change our
> plan to ship imminently an official release of Derby that includes JDBC4.
> I can see two alternatives for us:
> 1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
> drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would  continue to expose our
> JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we  would remove JDBC4-specific
> documentation from our user guides and prune out the JDBC4-specific
> javadoc.
> 2. Delay the current 10.2 schedule until after JDK 6 goes GA. At that
> time we could release a version of Derby which includes JDBC4 drivers.
> Given the length of time since 10.1 was released, the uncertainty of the
> exact date of JDK 6 shipment, and the number of new features included in
> 10.2, I think that (1) is a better plan. Of course, this is up to the
> community to decide.
> Regards,
> -Rick

View raw message