Mailing-List: contact derby-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Discussion" <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (idunn.apache.osuosl.org: domain bristowhill.com designates
 66.75.162.136 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4505F10E.90108@bristowhill.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:28:14 -0700
From: "Jean T. Anderson" <jta@bristowhill.com>
Reply-To: jta@bristowhill.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Discussion <derby-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: 10.2 licensing issue
References: <4505EF27.4050600@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <4505EF27.4050600@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wow! Thanks for the update, Rick. I agree that option #1 (release 10.2
without JDBC 4) is best.

 -jean

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