On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and sun?) people > working on them have questionable legalities. Take xerces (or crimson), at > one stage they included the jaxp source code and even if it doesn't anymore > it surely links against it.
They still include the jaxp source code, in xml-commons. But it's a clean-room implementation, made directly from the spec. AFAIK the people who wrote the code were not in the expert group when they wrote it. It's a bit strange, since trax was incorporated in jaxp1.1, but the code existed on apache even before was part of the spec. > Nor am I aware of any publically avaiable TCK for the JAXP library which > means that apaches xml parser is in violation of the license for JAXP spec. I > could be wrong but thats how I understand it and as such even major projects > at Apache are not legal. Fun eh? Probably it only mean it can't have a logo with 'jaxp' on it. We also use a clean room implementation of JMX in tomcat, same thing probably applies there. AFAIK ( and again don't take my word for it, call your lawyer :-), clean room implementations based on a published spec are perfectly legal. Probably the name/logo is protected, but saying that your code implements/is based on jaxp/jmx/etc ( but is not 'certified' or 'compatible' ) should be ok. Costin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
