From derby-user-return-5111-apmail-db-derby-user-archive=db.apache.org@db.apache.org Tue Sep 12 14:30:30 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 64771 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2006 14:30:30 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Sep 2006 14:30:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 54820 invoked by uid 500); 12 Sep 2006 14:30:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-user-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 54797 invoked by uid 500); 12 Sep 2006 14:30:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" Delivered-To: mailing list derby-user@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 54782 invoked by uid 99); 12 Sep 2006 14:30:27 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:30:27 -0700 Authentication-Results: idunn.apache.osuosl.org smtp.mail=geir@pobox.com; spf=unknown X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= Received-SPF: unknown (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain pobox.com does not designate 64.74.244.70 as permitted sender) Received: from ([64.74.244.70:48302] helo=smtp.ivresearch.com) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1 r(10620)) with ESMTP id DB/20-02782-A84C6054 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2006 07:30:37 -0700 Received: (qmail 29257 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2006 14:23:37 -0000 Received: from 70.57.125.209.transedge.com (HELO ?192.168.2.2?) (geir@209.125.57.70) by vdmx01.ivresearch.net with SMTP; 12 Sep 2006 14:23:37 -0000 Message-ID: <4506C2E0.7070904@pobox.com> Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:23:28 -0400 From: Geir Magnusson Jr Reply-To: geir@pobox.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Derby Discussion Subject: Re: 10.2 licensing issue... References: <45068E00.4040305@pobox.com> <4506BB50.4080508@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <4506BB50.4080508@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Rick Hillegas wrote: > > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >> I read Rick's note on the 10.2 licensing issue in an archive because of >> strange move to the user list, so sorry for the weird quoting : >> >> He said : >> >> "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.... >> >> snip >> >> ...For this reason, we, the Derby community must change our >> plan to ship imminently an official release of Derby that includes >> JDBC4." >> >> Let me start with a question : >> >> Why? Is this all about having a set of API jars to compile against, or >> is it something more? >> >> > Hi Geir, > > In a nutshell, yes. We can use the compiler from JDK 5 without any > licensing restrictions--for our purposes it's just as good as the JDK 6 > compiler. However, a restrictive beta license covers the apis in the JDK > 6 jars. This reminds me of the old gag : "Doctor, my arm hurts when I lift it" "Don't lift it then..." Don't use the JDK 6 jars. All you need to do is *compile*, so lets make our own JARs that get things to compile. Is there any runtime dependency on Java SE 6? geir