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. > > 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 > >
