Hi Mark, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
[...]
Yes, you can use the text of that RFC for the documentation of the classes. If you look into our LICENSE file you see that the same is already done for org/ietf/jgss using RFC 2853.
Good news for our documentation :-)
There are a couple of steps to follow when doing this. - We need to inform FSF legal (licensing@) that we wish to incorporate such text. Can you give me the RFC numbers? Then I inform them and include the text from the RFC. (We need to double check since not all RFCs come with precisely the same permission text.)
RFC 2910 IPP/1.1: Encoding and Transport RFC 2911 IPP/1.1: Model and Semantics RFC 3196 IPP/1.1: Implementor's Guide (not yet used for documentation) As far as I can see all have the same copyright statement as included in my former mail.
- We need to add a similar note as already done for org/ietf/jgss to the LICENSE file. That file should list all legal text so the user has one place to review them all.
I will prepare a patch if it is approved from FSF legal. Most likely the RFC documentation will be used for the javax.print.attribute.standard package (and maybe other javax.print classes - we will see) and all the internal gnu.ipp/cups stuff which is in preparation.
- Each file that includes documentation from the RFC should have the full permission statement as part of the first comment block just after the standard boilerplate. See for an example the file org/ietf/jgss/Oid.java. This makes sure each file as all notices covering the work so people can look it up even in isolation. And that way the text is automatically picked up by gjdoc -licensetext so that the generated documentation includes all notices automatically.
I had a look at this example. Shouldn't be a problem at all. Regards, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list Classpath@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
