www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Derby and the JCP
Date Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:26:27 GMT


Bill Shannon wrote:
> (If this message doesn't make it through to the legal-discuss mailing list,
> please forward it.)
> 
> Hi Geir.  As you know, I'm not a lawyer, but I have quite a bit of
> experience dealing with Java compatibility issues.  I've talked to
> Mark and Lance and cleared up their misunderstanding of the Java
> compatibility requirements.

Excellent.

> 
> Part of the confusion here is over the use of the word "implements"
> in the Java language vs. the use of the word "implements" in the
> Java compatibility rules.  These two uses do *not* have the same
> meaning.

I know.  I also tried to explain that at some point.

> 
> The spec for the java.util.Map API describes the requirements for
> a Java platform product that provides that API - in this case largely
> just the API signature.  It also describes the expected, but entirely
> optional, requirements of a class that "implements" (in the Java language
> sense) that API.  If your application has its own MyMap class that
> implements the Map API, are you required by the Java compatibility
> rules to obey all the details of the Map contract?  No, you're not.
> You can have a high quality, accurate implementation of the Map API,
> or you can have a low quality, buggy implementation of the Map API
> in your MyMap class.  The Java compatibility rules don't care.
> 
> The same is true for JDBC.  The JDBC spec defines the requirements of
> a Java platform product that provides the java.sql and javax.sql APIs.
> It also defines the expected, but entirely optional, requirements for
> a class that implements those APIs (i.e., a JDBC device driver).  A
> JDBC device driver that meets certain additional requirements may be
> labeled as JDBC 4.0 compatible, but it's not required that all drivers
> do that, and such requirements have nothing to do with the Java
> compatibility requirements in the JDBC spec license.
> 
> From the perspective of the Java spec license, both the MyMap class
> and the JDBC driver are users of the spec, not implementations of thet
> spec.

Yes.  That was my argument as well.

> 
> Yes, this can all be very confusing.  And yes, the combination of legal
> and technical language doesn't make it any clearer.
> 
> Hopefully I've clarified this particular issue.  Provided Derby itself
> does not include any of the java.sql or javax.sql API definitions, you
> don't need to worry about the JDBC spec license compatibility requirements
> that apply to implementations of the spec.

Bill, thanks for getting involved and clearing that up.

All of us here at the ASF wish to solve this problem with Derby and let
the Derby community, the JavaDB community, and the Mustang community the
freedom they need to distribute their upcoming releases.

I think we have one remaining problem - the new spec license for JDBC4
created 18 July 2006[1] dictates that implementations of the spec
include a notice that places restrictions on the use of the codebase  :


"This is an implementation of an early-draft
specification developed under the Java Community
Process (JCP) and is made available for testing and
evaluation purposes only. The code is not compatible
with any specification of the JCP."

Now, given that it's not an implementation as you so explain, I'm no
longer worried about this aspect of the spec license, but I need to ask :

Is Derby an "application written to the spec" ?  "application" isn't a
defined term in the license.  I ask because those "application[s]
written to the spec" are also encumbered in a way incompatible with an
open source license, namely :

"This is an application written to interoperate
with an early-draft specification developed under the
Java Community Process (JCP) and is made available for
testing and evaluation purposes only. The code is not
compatible with any specification of the JCP."

Now, if Derby is not an "application written to the spec", then we have
no problems.  Could you please clarify this for us?

geir


[1]

(https://sdlc4b.sun.com/ECom/EComActionServlet/DownloadPage:~:com.sun.sunit.sdlc.content.DownloadPageInfo;jsessionid=6EBB0EE6128E73F7F07BEC0EC8E6F2A4;jsessionid=6EBB0EE6128E73F7F07BEC0EC8E6F2A4?viewLicenceId_5=)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message