devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Keil <>
Subject Re: How to get the DDRSimpleAPI source code? (was: Does the build work?)
Date Tue, 20 Jan 2015 14:05:46 GMT
The JAR is the official Java distro of the W3C DDR API:

There has always been a source repo, but other than in its Wiki they did
not point to it on the final page:

It is licensed the same way
Copyright <> © 2008
W3C <>® (MIT <>, ERCIM
<>, Keio <>), All Rights
W3C liability
<>, trademark
<> and document
use <> rules apply.

W3C has the same license (maybe in different versions and updates over the
years) for all its standards and artifacts, see this one about DOM (which
is part of the JDK for over a decade)
Pointing to

Now unlike the "Spec" for DOM back in 2004, that for DDR did not explicitly
mention the "software license" but W3C has only one Software License: which
hasn't changed since 2002, so from my experience in the JCP and other
similar groups that software license shall apply to "software" produced by
the W3C even if the particular WG forgot to update its "Spec" page with
"Software rules", it produced software, hence the W3C software license
applies to that software as it does to all other software artifacts the W3C

I assume the license of all W3C standards and APIs is clear and (unlike
Reza's draft) the W3C DDR implementation contains this

Not sure if we should also point to the source repo (above), but the new
JAR contains every Java file for a class already, so even in the unlikely
event it would differ from the repo, the source in the JAR is the one that
counts and our implementation builds against this API.


On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> wrote:

> Hi,
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Werner Keil <>
> wrote:
> > ...Did you have a chance to look into that and the new availability of
> the
> > sources in at least 2 forms now?...
> Which are the URLs of these two forms?
> The requirements haven't changed, the source code needs to have an
> explicit license for us to be able to use it as a core dependency. Or
> we might maybe release the modules that depend on that source code
> with a NOTICE that mentions the unclear licensing.
> -Bertrand

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message