Rick Hillegas wrote: > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > >> Rick Hillegas wrote: >> >> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I read Rick's note on the 10.2 licensing issue in an archive because of >>>> strange move to the user list, so sorry for the weird quoting : >>>> >>>> He said : >>>> >>>> "I must report today that the restrictions imposed by the beta JDK >>>> license have not been lifted. >>>> >>>> As you know, the JDK 6 beta license requires a disclaimer that bars the >>>> use of the code for any productive use.... >>>> >>>> snip >>>> >>>> ...For this reason, we, the Derby community must change our >>>> plan to ship imminently an official release of Derby that includes >>>> JDBC4." >>>> >>>> Let me start with a question : >>>> >>>> Why? Is this all about having a set of API jars to compile against, or >>>> is it something more? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Hi Geir, >>> >>> In a nutshell, yes. We can use the compiler from JDK 5 without any >>> licensing restrictions--for our purposes it's just as good as the JDK 6 >>> compiler. However, a restrictive beta license covers the apis in the JDK >>> 6 jars. >>> >> >> This reminds me of the old gag : >> >> "Doctor, my arm hurts when I lift it" >> "Don't lift it then..." >> >> Don't use the JDK 6 jars. All you need to do is *compile*, so lets make >> our own JARs that get things to compile. >> >> > Hi Geir, > > I did consider this option. The following problems bothered me: > > 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? IIRC, there are no prohibitions for this. We wouldn't be distributing those jars. AS a matter of fact, maybe the JDBC4 EG could make them available :) > > 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? geir > > Regards, > -Rick > >> Is there any runtime dependency on Java SE 6? >> >> geir >> >> >> > > >
