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 23:45:13 GMT


Bill Shannon wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> We would consider Derby (and in particular, the Derby JDBC driver) to
> be an application written to the spec.
> 
> The notification requirement is a recent addition to the spec license,
> part of other changes that were intended to clarify what rights an
> application has.  I'm investigating whether we could simply remove
> the notification requirement.  If we could, would that be sufficient?
> 

I certainly believe so, as then there's no encumbrance on downstream
licensees apart from the Apache license...

Thanks so much for taking the time for this.

geir


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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