www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: stubbed out implementations of jcp-managed interfaces
Date Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:36 GMT
ALv2 is fine

On Oct 30, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:

> Thanks for everyone's responses so far. Nathan also raised the  
> issue of copyright notice for the stubs. Would the stubs need a  
> dual copyright notice or would ASLv2 be sufficient?
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
> Nathan Beyer wrote:
>> I believe something similar is done to compile the OSGi code. If you
>> register to download the specification, a couple of the provided
>> downloads are JARs that are the compiled stubs and source for the
>> CDC/etc that the OSGi classes are compiled against.
>>
>> If you look at the stub source, they seem to have ASLv2 license  
>> with a
>> copyright claim to Sun and the OSGi Alliance.
>>
>> As for creating the stubs, the Harmony project works under the
>> assumptions Henri mentioned below. You can use the spec (the javadoc)
>> to build the source, but you can't copy the javadoc comments.
>>
>> -Nathan
>>
>> On 10/26/07, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/26/07, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The following issue has come up on the Derby developer list and  
>>>> I would
>>>> like your advice about how to proceed:
>>>>
>>>> In order to build a releasable distribution of Derby, a  
>>>> developer needs
>>>> to compile Derby's small device support. Right now, this involves
>>>> finding an implementation of the CDC foundation classes and the  
>>>> JSR 169
>>>> database interface classes--both of which implementations are  
>>>> licensed
>>>> under JCP rules. As far as I know, the only implementations of  
>>>> these
>>>> interfaces are available from companies which require that you  
>>>> accept
>>>> their additional, encumbering licenses. Rather than sending every
>>>> release manager out on this hunt, I'd like to be able to check  
>>>> in enough
>>>> Apache-compatible machinery that the Derby build would always
>>>> automatically compile the small device support.
>>>>
>>>> One possibility would be to create our own stubbed out  
>>>> implementation of
>>>> the CDC foundation and JSR 169 classes. A warning, however, has  
>>>> been
>>>> raised. We are worried that the JCP rules may not allow us to  
>>>> create a
>>>> stubbed out implementation which is only useful for compilation
>>>> purposes. Is that also the opinion of the jcp-open@apache.org list?
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate your advice on how I can get my hands on  
>>>> unencumbered
>>>> compile-time machinery so that I can simplify the Derby build.
>>>>
>>> I thought Geronimo had done this a lot - you can use the spec to  
>>> build
>>> it but you can't use the javadoc as that is copyrightable. As  
>>> long as
>>> we don't release it claiming it is a certified implementation of the
>>> JSR, then I think we're fine.
>>>
>>> Will let others chime in if they think different.
>>>
>>> We've long talked about having a central location for all of these
>>> jars to sit so we're not all playing hunt-the-jar when its time to
>>> find such a stub.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>>
>


Mime
View raw message