Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Jean T. Anderson wrote: > >> David posted a good summary of the legal catch-22 at [1]. But the >> shortest story is: >> >> + Mustang wants to ship a GA Derby 10.2, which supports JDBC 4.0. >> + Derby can't ship a GA 10.2 until JDBC 4.0 is GA, which is with Mustang. >> >> Let's keep this thread confined to the JCP issue Andrew raised that to >> roll a release candidate qualifies as "creation".[2] And those release >> candidates will be generally available. > > I don't think the JCP rules apply since we are not creating an > implementation of JSR221.
How could that be? Where did the information for the APIs come from? > > I'm sure other rules apply that say one cannot ship a JDBC 4.0 driver > until Mustang goes GA, but that's not the JCP rules that Andrew provided > references to. It would be good to get Lance to expand on what he meant > when he said: > > "You cannot have a GA version of a JDBC 4 driver until JSR 221 goes final." > > Where does this restriction come from? I'm not sure. The license on the public review draft gives no rights to distribute an implementation under *any* label (more recent public review draft licenses do now after the whole EJB3 brouhaha) > > Dan. > >> How do we handle this cleanly? I would assume that you just don't ship a JDBC 4 driver with the release of Derby, and do a release when the spec is final and a TCK can be obtained from the spec lead to ensure that the implementation is compatible with the spec. It's just a driver. The database is fully functional w/o it, right? Seems to be fairly simple. geir >> >> -jean >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-10.2-release-schedule-t1832249.html >> [2] http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-10.2-release-schedule-t1832249.html >> > > > >
