Re: catch-22: Derby, Mustang, and JCP issue

[Lance J. Andersen]

Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Andrew McIntyre wrote: On 6/23/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. Then I'm confused, if we're not an implementation, thus not subject to section 5 of the terms in the JSPA, and the copyright concerns w/r/t the evaluation license are not an issue for us, then why does the spec draft license need to change? Can somebody spell that out for me? Derby isn't an implementation, but there is a small piece that implements the JDBC4 spec. It certainly seems like changing the spec license is the right thing to do to make everybody happy. So, can someone from Sun or JCP please confirm that the draft spec license will in fact be changed? I've made the request formally. As I said in a follow-up, the solution that will be easier will be a permissive license for the upcoming proposed final draft. Geir and I have spoken and i have also discussed it internally and we are going to look at updating the license for the PFD I guess that, yes, we still cannot ship a GA version of Derby with the JDBC 4 until another draft of the spec is posted with the new license attached. andrew