hi, that's right - since it was a pretty long thread which also includes other topics, i just linked the first message as a starting point. anyway, does someone know a nice and correct wiki about such topics? so we could link it in our wiki.
regards, gerhard 2008/12/9 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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? >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >> > >> >> > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
