So could a non-tainted person through black box testing produce their own JAXP clone?
-Andy On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 19:55, Conor MacNeill wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > > > > > I think what Peter said was that you can read the spec only if you > > agree with the licence, and that prevents you from implementing it > > unless you follow all the rules. > > > > You can read the spec. You just can't use the spec to create a cleanroom > implementation of the specification. You can still read it to understand how > to use somebody else's implementation. Presumably, however, having read the > spec, you are tainted. > > > That includes the requirement to pass the official test suite, > > and probably other restrictions I don't understand. > > The problematic clause is this one, I presume: > "(vi) satisfies all testing requirements available from the Specification > Lead relating to the most > recently published version of the Specification six (6) months prior to any > release of the clean room > implementation or upgrade thereto;" > > Presumably we cannot distribute the xml-apis unless we can meet this > requirement of the spec. > > This page > http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr063/ > > asserts that there is a JAXP TCK, although you can't seem to purchase it > online. > > Other restrictions - who knows? When the spec says "(vii) does not derive > from any of the Specification Lead's source code or binary code materials;", > it is not clear to me what that covers, especially in the case of JAXP where > I think the RI comes from Apache, based on code originally contributed by > the Specification Lead (Sun). > > Also there may be a specific Out-of-Band Sun-Apache licence in place as > alluded to by Dirk earlier. > > > > > It's obvious some of the people who worked on this did read > > the spec - so it seems this is not a legal implementation. > > > > If there is no specific agreement between Sun and Apache covering this, then > I agree. > > > The licencing and jcp lists are closed to the public, and > > this seems to be the job of the PMC and ASF ( to verify > > that all the software is legally used ). I can only hope > > a lawyer will be used to validate it. > > > > If this is not resolved - we have to start removing all > > dependencies to JAXP and all other APIs that are not legal, > > and eventually work on replacements. > > > > There is no other way. > > I presume you can still depend on JAXP without having your own clean room > implementation, nor including it in a distribution. You would have to > require the user to acquire their own copy of the jaxp classes/interfaces. I > haven't seen any restrictions in the spec on linking. > > Conor > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- http://www.superlinksoftware.com http://jakarta.apache.org/poi - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document format to java http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html - fix java generics! The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -Ambassador Kosh -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
