The JAR is the official Java distro of the W3C DDR API: http://www.w3.org/TR/DDR-Simple-API/#sec-java-representation
There has always been a source repo, but other than in its Wiki they did not point to it on the final page: http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/api/simple/java/src/ It is licensed the same way Copyright <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Copyright> © 2008 W3C <http://www.w3.org/>® (MIT <http://www.csail.mit.edu/>, ERCIM <http://www.ercim.org/>, Keio <http://www.keio.ac.jp/>), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#Legal_Disclaimer>, trademark <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice#W3C_Trademarks> and document use <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-documents> rules apply. W3C has the same license (maybe in different versions and updates over the years) for all its standards and artifacts, see this one about DOM (which is part of the JDK for over a decade) http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/org/w3c/dom/Element.html Pointing to http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-DOM-Level-3-Core-20040407/ Now unlike the "Spec" for DOM back in 2004, that for DDR did not explicitly mention the "software license" but W3C has only one Software License: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 which hasn't changed since 2002, so from my experience in the JCP and other similar groups that software license shall apply to "software" produced by the W3C even if the particular WG forgot to update its "Spec" page with "Software rules", it produced software, hence the W3C software license applies to that software as it does to all other software artifacts the W3C produced. I assume the license of all W3C standards and APIs is clear and (unlike Reza's draft) the W3C DDR implementation contains this https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/devicemap/trunk/devicemap/java/simpleddr/NOTICE Not sure if we should also point to the source repo (above), but the new JAR contains every Java file for a class already, so even in the unlikely event it would differ from the repo, the source in the JAR is the one that counts and our implementation builds against this API. Werner On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ...Did you have a chance to look into that and the new availability of > the > > sources in at least 2 forms now?... > > Which are the URLs of these two forms? > > The requirements haven't changed, the source code needs to have an > explicit license for us to be able to use it as a core dependency. Or > we might maybe release the modules that depend on that source code > with a NOTICE that mentions the unclear licensing. > > -Bertrand >
