Hi Simon, Gerhard link is correct although not including the whole post, one of the reply from Matthias. Maybe we should raise the issue on legal-discuss? At worst, your way of writing the doc sounds very reasonable as well. My team wouldn't need the go away for a while part however since it's two completely different persons coding and documenting for code reviews purpose.
Regards, ~ Simon On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hi, > > I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally > sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an > Apache-licensed file. > > Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is > something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But if not, then > we must follow the relevant copyright laws. I definitely interpreted the > original JSF1.1/JSF1.2 specs as NOT permitting copying of javadoc from > the spec into our classes. > > Do you happen to have a link (or even the email subject line) for the > earlier discussion? I must have missed that... > > Note that for dtd and schema files it is pretty easy to avoid copyright > issues; the vast majority of such files is data-structure definition > that has only one possible form, and therefore is not copyrightable. > Simply taking someone else's file is still wrong here, but the original > can be used as a "reference" for the non-copyrightable technical > details, so creating the new version is effectively pretty close to > "just retyping". > > Javadoc, however, is prose writing which is creative expression. So it > should *not* be used as a reference when writing new javadoc; that would > be plagiarism. > > I did create a significant amount of javadoc for the JSF1.1 and JSF1.2 > implementations (though still far from complete coverage); my approach > was to > (a) ensure that the implementation matched the specification description > (referencing the original docs) > (b) go away for a while > (c) some time later, write the javadoc based on the *code* (not using > the original docs as a reference) > > From your other email: > <quote> > p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it > only refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for > offline users nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping > JavaDoc out is of course a valid option as well if the community wishes > it, but it also implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't > be any good. > </quote> > > I think the javadoc that was specifically written for myfaces classes is > more useful for end-users than the spec stuff (more helpful, less picky > technical detail). But yes it is a minority of classes, with most still > just linking to the external specs. I'm sure nobody *wants* to keep > javadoc external to the classes, but recreating all the docs is a big > task, and the alternative (copying) was IMO just not legal. > > Yes, it's annoying but copyright is copyright. And if we don't follow > the law then the spec copyright-holder has every right to sue. > > IANAL and all that. > > Regards, > Simon K. > > Simon Lessard schrieb: > > Hi Simon K., > > > > We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually > > retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since > > it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed. > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into > > myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc > > descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit > permission > > would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file > > licensed under the Apache license... > > > > In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy > > any javadoc from the spec.. > > > > Regards, > > Simon > > > > >> Simon Lessard wrote: > > >> > > >>> To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and > > @return, > > >>> which > > >>> is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and > > doesn't > > >>> specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it > > better to match > > >>> the official API or to make checkstyle happy? > > >>> > > >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard > > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Hi all, > > >>>> > > >>>> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. > > Personally > > >>>> I > > >>>> would give higher priority to completed comments than > > checkstyle whining, > > >>>> what you guys think about it? > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > >
