myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <>
Subject Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:15:00 GMT
 From reading the license we will need a lawyer :-)

Looks like paragraphs 2-5 are the important ones

I think paragraph 2 gives us the license to copy the javadoc. Esp  
part i & iii, can we fully implement the spec or pass the user guide  
part of the TCK without the javadocs? Since pg 38 of the spec  
(version 1.2_PR)  explicitly says the javadoc are part of the spec  
(older versions f the spec say the same thing) we probably have the  
license to copy them.

Just my thoughts from the bit of research I've been able to do this am.



On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:

> I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
> sean
> On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <> wrote:
>> Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
>> Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
>> Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
>> kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
>> according to the spec license?
>> I don't know.
>> -Manfred
>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <>:
>>> Hi All,
>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding  
>>> tests to
>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
>>> Thoughts?
>>> TTFN,
>>> -bd-

View raw message