Is there some other e-mail list where we should should discuss the
xjavadoc licensing issue? infrastructure? Or...???
Thanks,
Erik
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 08:54 AM, Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
Hello,
The XDoclet project (http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/) is considering
applying for
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
The XDoclet project (http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/) is considering
applying for Jakarta/Apache membership.
Glad to hear that !
We believe that these differences are sufficient in order to avoid
potential licensing problems with Sun.
I'm not sure I understand
i think that licensing would be the right list to ask on.
i believe that XDoclet would now have to be incubated (rather than going
straight into jakarta). i think that one of the functions of the
incubation process would be to give definite answers on these kinds of
questions.
- robert
On
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 01:27 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
i believe that XDoclet would now have to be incubated (rather than
going straight into jakarta). i think that one of the functions of the
incubation process would be to give definite answers on these kinds of
questions.
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
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
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Costin Manolache
Sent: 26. mars 2003 18:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XDoclet, XJavaDoc, Apache and Licensing
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
The XDoclet project (http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/) is considering
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26. mars 2003 20:00
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: XDoclet, XJavaDoc, Apache and Licensing
Has anyone just asked Sun for their official stance on the matter?
No. I'd love to ask them, but I
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.
*http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.1/j2sdk-1_4_1_02-license.html
4. Java Technology Restrictions.* You may not modify the Java Platform
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26. mars 2003 20:10
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: XDoclet, XJavaDoc, Apache and Licensing
No, not implementing any JavaDoc API at all. I think the main issue
is that the API mirrors
Ok, that's a bunch of stuff we're not allowed to do (regarding package
names), and AFAICT we (XJavaDoc) are not doing any of that.
What's your point Andy?
Someone said that you were mirroring the com.sun packages.. Is that
bad? I showed that it was.
If you're not, then obviously it doesn't
On Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at 06:54 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Ok, that's a bunch of stuff we're not allowed to do (regarding package
names), and AFAICT we (XJavaDoc) are not doing any of that.
What's your point Andy?
Someone said that you were mirroring the com.sun packages.. Is that
Someone said that you were mirroring the com.sun packages.. Is that
bad? I showed that it was.
If you're not, then obviously it doesn't apply.
We mirror by having an API that looks similar in its class
hierarchy, but that is the only similarity. Different package names, etc.
IANAL, AFAIK
Hello,
The XDoclet project (http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/) is considering
applying for Jakarta/Apache membership. Before we get into that process,
we'd like to clarify some licensing issues we think we might have.
XJavaDoc (a sub project of XDoclet) is a library that parses Java source
files
14 matches
Mail list logo
