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.
Geir also said that as far as the copyright claims in the spec
evaluation license were not of consequence for us.
From: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-dev/200606.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
"The Apache License is the only copyright license on the code for
downstream licensees. Nothing else - Sun's weird theories about spec
copyright notwithstanding."
andrew
