You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM> on 2006/08/05 01:04:19 UTC

Legal hiccups for 10.2

I have posed Dan's question to legal-dicuss: Does the AS IS clause of 
the Apache 2.0 license conflict with the "testing and evaluation 
purposes only" clause of JDBC4's early-draft disclaimer. For more 
context, see the discussion in the comments of DERBY-1639.

Geir Magnusson answered "yes", this is a conflict. The following options 
occur to me:

1) Convince the JDBC4 expert group to accelerate the final draft of the 
JDBC4 spec.

2) Ship 10.2 without JDBC4 support.

3) Other creative options?

Regards,
-Rick

Re: Legal hiccups for 10.2

Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
The legal discussion of this topic continues down through this morning 
on the "Derby and the JCP" thread at 
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200608.mbox/browser.

Regards,
-Rick


Rick Hillegas wrote:

> I have posed Dan's question to legal-dicuss: Does the AS IS clause of 
> the Apache 2.0 license conflict with the "testing and evaluation 
> purposes only" clause of JDBC4's early-draft disclaimer. For more 
> context, see the discussion in the comments of DERBY-1639.
>
> Geir Magnusson answered "yes", this is a conflict. The following 
> options occur to me:
>
> 1) Convince the JDBC4 expert group to accelerate the final draft of 
> the JDBC4 spec.
>
> 2) Ship 10.2 without JDBC4 support.
>
> 3) Other creative options?
>
> Regards,
> -Rick

Re: Legal hiccups for 10.2

Posted by David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>.
I vote for "other creative options" although I couldn't say what they 
are right now...

David

Rick Hillegas wrote:
> I have posed Dan's question to legal-dicuss: Does the AS IS clause of 
> the Apache 2.0 license conflict with the "testing and evaluation 
> purposes only" clause of JDBC4's early-draft disclaimer. For more 
> context, see the discussion in the comments of DERBY-1639.
> 
> Geir Magnusson answered "yes", this is a conflict. The following options 
> occur to me:
> 
> 1) Convince the JDBC4 expert group to accelerate the final draft of the 
> JDBC4 spec.
> 
> 2) Ship 10.2 without JDBC4 support.
> 
> 3) Other creative options?
> 
> Regards,
> -Rick