On 22 Apr 2002, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 09:55, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > You may want to have a look at what the XDoclet folks are doing. They have > > written a javadoc replacement called xjavadoc that uses JavaCC to parse Java > > files, primarily to pull out @tags, but also to pull out source code too, I > > believe. > > > > Perhaps you're reinventing what they've already done?! Worth a look at > > least! > > Javadoc parsing is slightly tricky but it's not that complicated. The > java parser will eventually be complete: space preservation, support for > aspects and couple other things up my sleeve. > > If the license is compatible (which I imagine it's not) then we can just > lift the production for javadoc out of their grammar. If the license is > fine then I'll take a look if not I won't look at the code.
Well, they look pretty compatible. In fact, it seems less stringent than the Apache 1.1 license. I compared the two licenses from the following urls: XDoclet License : http://xdoclet.sourceforge.net/license.html Apache 1.1 : http://www.apache.org/LICENSE I can't find anything in the XDoclet license that would prevent us from using their grammer, but IANAL. (On that note, are there any lawyers who are also developers? Can you imagine the internal struggles they would go through? "This should be open source... no, slap patents all over this... no, open source it... patents, open source, patentsopensourcepatentsopensource.... ARRRGGGHHHH" Just kidding. Some of my best friends are lawyers. :-) Glenn McAllister SOMA Networks, Inc.
