Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?

[Bill Dudney]

always easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I love it! :-) TTFN, -bd- On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote: I would say that yes, it is OK. we could of course just do it and see what happens ;) regards, Martin On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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- >>> >>> >> >