Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: > Update - a slight modification to #1 would be for the upcoming proposed > final draft to be under the new license. (Source of this suggestion > shall remain nameless) That way no unnatural acts have to be done to an > already-released draft.
Whatever works for both Apache and Sun is terrific. -jean > geir > > > Jean T. Anderson wrote: > >>Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: >> >><snipped interesting stuff to show just the end solution> >> >>>While I'd just chuck JDBC4 myself, that doesn't work for Sun. So I did >>>come up with one solution : >>> >>>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. >>> >>>2) Reject Mark Reinhold's curious claim that a relational database is >>>actually an implementation of JDBC. Derby is a relational database that >>>among a whole array of features and functionality, one just happens to >>>be DBC4. >>> >>>3) Do your 10.2 GA on your own schedule. Serve your user community. >>>Make people happy. Bathe in the accolades, get good press coverage, >>>treat yourself to a nice bottle of wine. (And put a note in the release >>>notes that state the the JDBC4 functionality is "pre-spec" or whatever >>>the new draft spec license requires.) >>> >>>4) Release 10.2.1 when Mustang goes GA and remove that sentence in the >>>release notes. >>> >>>I think in this way, everyone is satisfied. The ASF is following the >>>letter of the law wrt JCP specs (as we always have done), a GA release >>>can be made with the functionality needed by Mustang, Sun doesn't have >>>to fork Derby, users have no upgrade issues with their "production >>>version", etc. >>> >>>Comments? >> >>+1 >> >> -jean >> >>
