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
-Original Message-
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 5:38 AM
To: derby-user@db.apache.org
Subject: 10.2 licensing issue...
I read Rick's note on the 10.2 licensing issue in an archive because of
strange move to the user list, so
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
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
-- Original message --
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
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
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
Hi Geir,
On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:37 AM, 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 :
This issue affects users of Derby just as much as developers. Users
counting
Craig L Russell wrote:
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
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Geir,
On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:37 AM, 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 :
This issue affects users of Derby just as much as developers
Excuse me - I looked at the 220 license as noted by Craig below, not the
*221* license, which is the one that actually applies.
It turns out there are *no rights* enumerated for users as far as I can
tell in the spec license.
So the solution to this really annoying, tiresome and really avoidable
Hi Geir,
I hate to be the broken record, but there are real user compatibility
issues in releasing a production version of software that depends on
pre-release versions of software.
Real users can get hurt.
Craig
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Excuse me - I looked
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Geir,
On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:37 AM, 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
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:49 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Geir,
On Sep 12, 2006, at 3:37 AM, 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
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi Geir,
I hate to be the broken record, but there are real user compatibility
issues in releasing a production version of software that depends on
pre-release versions of software.
Real users can get hurt.
Sure, and this is FUD at this point, because I don't
:
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
--
From: Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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. This restriction is meant to
forestall binary incompatibilities with the final, GA
Wow! Thanks for the update, Rick. I agree that option #1 (release 10.2
without JDBC 4) is best.
-jean
Rick Hillegas wrote:
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
On 9/11/06, Rick Hillegas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see two alternatives for us:
1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would continue to expose our
JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we would remove JDBC4-specific
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
On 9/11/06, Rick Hillegas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see two alternatives for us:
1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would continue to expose our
JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we
Rick Hillegas wrote:
I can see two alternatives for us:
1. Ship 10.2 on the current schedule but do not include the JDBC4
drivers. When run on Java SE 6, Derby 10.2 would continue to expose
our JDBC3 implementation. In addition, we would remove JDBC4-specific
documentation from our user
23 matches
Mail list logo
