From reading the license we will need a lawyer :-)
Looks like paragraphs 2-5 are the important ones
http://tinyurl.com/bd4hf
I think paragraph 2 gives us the license to copy the javadoc. Esp
part i & iii, can we fully implement the spec or pass the user guide
part of the TCK without the javadocs? Since pg 38 of the spec
(version 1.2_PR) explicitly says the javadoc are part of the spec
(older versions f the spec say the same thing) we probably have the
license to copy them.
Just my thoughts from the bit of research I've been able to do this am.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
sean
On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
according to the spec license?
I don't know.
-Manfred
2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi All,
Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
tests to
the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
Thoughts?
TTFN,
-bd-
