Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> >> > >> > For violating the JSPA or the spec evaluation agreement as far as >> > creating/distributing an implementation, which is where people got the >> > idea that we couldn't publish a GA version of Derby that had JDBC 4.0 >> > bits in it. Although it appears we've now determined that Derby has no >> > obligations with regard to these agreements as to when it can do a >> > release. >> >> I must have missed that, when was that detemrined? > > > In #2 of his proposed solution, Geir said he doesn't believe that > Derby qualifies as an implementation, and thus would not be affected > by the JSPA.
I thought Geir's proposed solution was predicated on item 1) Geir wrote: > 1) Have Sun change the draft spec license for 221 from the current to > the new one that allows distribution with appropriate warning markings. > I'm going to start working this line w/ the PMO and the JCP. Until the licence is changed we cannot ship a GA version of Derby with JDBC 4.0 code. Dan.
