www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Shannon <bill.shan...@sun.com>
Subject Re: Derby and the JCP
Date Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:31:13 GMT
As far as I knew, only the spec license was at issue here.  If you
believe there's an issue with other Sun licenses, let me know and
I'll look into it.  I'd rather not spend my time on theoretical
"what if" scenarios, but if you see a real problem let me know.

And if you've got a list of these things, I'd prefer to see them all
at once rather than one at a time.

Thanks.



Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Bill Shannon wrote:
> 
>>We've approved an update to the spec license for non-final specs that
>>removes the notification requirement for applications.  We'll be
>>publishing an updated version of the JDBC 4.0 spec ASAP, with luck
>>this week.  I hope this will address your concerns.
> 
> 
> Thanks Bill.
> 
> Now for the next concern, which in a way is a more general concern. :-(
> 
> For an ASF release, what are rules for the third-party items a release
> manager used to *build* the release? I'm not asking about distributing
> such items, just the use of them during the build process.
> 
> From this discussion it seems clear that any use of a third-party
> licence that imposes a restriction on the resulting build is not acceptable.
> 
> What about if the release manager belongs a select group of folks who
> can get some technology under a licence that does *not* impose
> restrictions, while the generally available licence does impose
> restrictions?
> 
> To provide a concrete example, use of the Mustang compiler to build
> Derby for its JDBC 4 features would seem to impose this restriction:
> 
> "2.2 Binary Code. Sun grants to Licensee, a
> non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free and
> limited license to use the binary code portions of the
> Licensed Software internally for the purposes of
> evaluation only."
> 
> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6-beta2-license.txt
> 
> However, let's say the release manager is from Sun and gets an internal
> version of mustang without this restriction and builds a Derby release.
> Is the release acceptable to the ASF?
> 
> [I have no actual idea what the plans are for using Mustang compiler
> with Derby and if the release manager who happens to be from Sun is
> planning a to get a non-resticted Mustang for his own use].
> 
> There may also be issues with other third-party items that derby
> (optionally) uses to build such as JSR169 jars.
> 
> Dan.
> 


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