There are a number of people (although not me currently) working on this kind of issue.
One comment about JAXP: in my non-lawyerly way, I'm presuming there is no issue here. The xml-commons project is how Xalan (and soon Xerces) get their SAX/DOM/JAXP code. The actual source files for the javax.xml.parsers and javax.xml.transform packages are checked into the xml-commons repository with the Apache license - so I don't see why you can't use this implementation just like any other Apache software. I guess I'm not seeing why most people can't just ignore the licensing issues with the JAXP specification, and just happily use xml-commons' implementation thereof and just use the Apache license. (Since a Sun engineer checked in the xml-commons/.../javax files and has confirmed that they should have the Apache license, I'm pretty sure it was not a mistake). And my other non-lawyerly comments are that SAX is a no brainer, and the DOM license seems pretty permissive as long as you're just using it as-is. ===== - Shane <eof aka="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; .sig="Du sublime au ridicule il n'y a qu'un pas." /> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
