myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Dudney <bdud...@mac.com>
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

http://tinyurl.com/bd4hf

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.

TTFN,

-bd-


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 <manfred.geiler@gmail.com> 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 <bdudney@mac.com>:
>>
>>> 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-
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message