db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: 10.2 licensing issue...
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:28:54 GMT
Hi Geir,

On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> A) I couldn't figure out how to build the dummy jars without cribbing
>> templates from either the beta code or beta javadoc. To me this  
>> cribbing
>> seemed like a forbidden, productive use of the beta-licensed  
>> distribution.
> What's the license on the spec?

The spec license has the same restriction on implementations of JSR  
220. If Derby were to build our own "dummy jars" then we would be an  
implementation of 220 not just a user of the classes defined in the  
>> B) It seemed, frankly, a little sneaky and a violation of the  
>> spirit of
>> the license.
> As I grok it, the spirit of the license is all about ensuring
> compatibility.  Is there anything that you feel about what we're
> proposing in any way violates compatibility or puts it at risk for  
> users?

This is precisely the issue. A user of Derby 10.2 compiled with pre- 
release JDBC4 jars might get unexpected results if the final release  
jars differ from the pre-release jars. For example, constants from  
the compile jars get incorporated into the binaries and this conflict  
won't be detected via the normal compatibility checks.


> geir

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message