Has anyone just asked Sun for their official stance on the matter? Quoting Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 12:59 PM, Costin Manolache wrote: > >> We believe that these differences are sufficient in order to avoid > >> potential licensing problems with Sun. > > > > I'm not sure I understand where the licensing problems would come > from. > > > > Are you using any code from javadoc or Sun ? Are you implementing any > > Sun > > APIs in XJavaDoc ? > > No, not implementing any JavaDoc API at all. I think the main issue is > that the API "mirrors" the com.sun.* API in terms of the source code > model that it builds. > > > The only possible problem I can see is the name ( which is very close > > ). > > And of course if the name itself is an issue. > > >> 2) Would it be fair to claim that XJavaDoc is *not* a clean room > >> implementation of JavaDoc? > > > > That's something only XJavaDoc authors you can tell, and nobody else. > > If you used JavaDoc source code in creating XJavaDoc - then it can't > > be a "clean room". > > No, the source code of javadoc was not used in developing xjavadoc - > just the public API was mirrored. ClassDoc (I think that's the > com.sun.* name) maps to XClass, for example. The interface is not > exactly the same, as Aslak pointed out. XJavaDoc uses bean style > naming conventions, whereas javadoc's API does not. > > Erik > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
