You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to jcp-open@apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org> on 2008/12/12 09:37:19 UTC
QL support vs. full JSR implementation
This is a legal question, but since it pertains to a JSR, I figured
I'd ask it here.
We (the Cayenne project) have gone a long way in implementing a
compliant JPA provider (JSR-220), but can not finish it now for a
number of reasons, main one being that all the developers and power
users (i.e. the people who have enough knowledge to make it happen)
are very happy with the present Cayenne API and have no plans to
switch to JPA, hence no itch to scratch. Still we'd like to keep some
things on Cayenne end that were developed in the process:
1. We'd like to preserve the ability to run the JSR-220 EJBQL via non-
JPA Cayenne. Does this conflict in any way with the "License for the
Distribution of Compliant Implementations" clause in the JSR? I would
think no, as we don't implement any JSR interfaces or require a JSR
dependency. All we are doing is interpreting certain strings in a
certain way. But I figured I'd check.
2. Now going a step further, would there be a conflict with the JSR
license if we also start supporting lifecycle annotations (this time,
taken from javax.persistence package)? This one I am not so sure about.
Thoughts?
Andrus
Re: QL support vs. full JSR implementation
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <aa...@apache.org>.
JSR-220, page 2, "LIMITED LICENSE GRANTS",
2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations
This section grants a permission to implement the spec *fully* (i.e.
pass the TCK), and then goes on saying that "No license is granted
hereunder for any other purpose".
Andrus
On Dec 15, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> This is a great question.
>
> First, which clause are you referring to?
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> This is a legal question, but since it pertains to a JSR, I figured
>> I'd ask it here.
>>
>> We (the Cayenne project) have gone a long way in implementing a
>> compliant JPA provider (JSR-220), but can not finish it now for a
>> number of reasons, main one being that all the developers and power
>> users (i.e. the people who have enough knowledge to make it happen)
>> are very happy with the present Cayenne API and have no plans to
>> switch to JPA, hence no itch to scratch. Still we'd like to keep
>> some things on Cayenne end that were developed in the process:
>>
>> 1. We'd like to preserve the ability to run the JSR-220 EJBQL via
>> non-JPA Cayenne. Does this conflict in any way with the "License
>> for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations" clause in the
>> JSR? I would think no, as we don't implement any JSR interfaces or
>> require a JSR dependency. All we are doing is interpreting certain
>> strings in a certain way. But I figured I'd check.
>>
>> 2. Now going a step further, would there be a conflict with the JSR
>> license if we also start supporting lifecycle annotations (this
>> time, taken from javax.persistence package)? This one I am not so
>> sure about.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> Andrus
>>
>
>
Re: QL support vs. full JSR implementation
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
This is a great question.
First, which clause are you referring to?
On Dec 12, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> This is a legal question, but since it pertains to a JSR, I figured
> I'd ask it here.
>
> We (the Cayenne project) have gone a long way in implementing a
> compliant JPA provider (JSR-220), but can not finish it now for a
> number of reasons, main one being that all the developers and power
> users (i.e. the people who have enough knowledge to make it happen)
> are very happy with the present Cayenne API and have no plans to
> switch to JPA, hence no itch to scratch. Still we'd like to keep
> some things on Cayenne end that were developed in the process:
>
> 1. We'd like to preserve the ability to run the JSR-220 EJBQL via
> non-JPA Cayenne. Does this conflict in any way with the "License for
> the Distribution of Compliant Implementations" clause in the JSR? I
> would think no, as we don't implement any JSR interfaces or require
> a JSR dependency. All we are doing is interpreting certain strings
> in a certain way. But I figured I'd check.
>
> 2. Now going a step further, would there be a conflict with the JSR
> license if we also start supporting lifecycle annotations (this
> time, taken from javax.persistence package)? This one I am not so
> sure about.
>
> Thoughts?
> Andrus
>