Hi Michael. Michael Glavassevich: > I was thinking of just linking the file from Batik into XML Commons but > wanted to check whether the license on it was correct first. Usually > source files for org.w3c.dom.* have the W3C copyright notice / license > header. This one has the ASF header. I'm not sure which one should be in > there. I assume the file wasn't created by the W3C but the interface > definition would have come from the Element Traversal specification which > has its own license [5]. Has anyone in Batik land explored this before and > if so what was the conclusion?
I was also a little unsure what header to use, since as you say the Element Traversal specification doesn’t include a separate ElementTraversal.java file. I don’t remember if I wrote the file from scratch (by looking at the IDL), or if I copied the text from the spec and reformatted it. Does it matter, here? I should point out also that the W3C Software License is different from the W3C Document License (which is what, for example, the comments at the top of the DOM Level 3 Core interfaces state they are licensed under). I imagine that, since there isn’t any statement to the contrary, that the inline interface part of http://www.w3.org/TR/ElementTraversal/ is covered under the Document License. Am I correct in thinking that if the interface is mistakenly covered by the Document License, that we shouldn’t be including it? I am a member of the Web Applications WG, so I will ask on their mailing list about the licensing of the file. Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
