Re: 10.2 licensing issue...

[Craig L Russell]

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 spec.

the license.

B) It seemed, frankly, a little sneaky and a violation of the spirit of

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?

Craig

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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature