www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Kitching <skitch...@apache.org>
Subject MyFaces: copyright question re javadoc and JSR specs
Date Mon, 21 Nov 2005 06:31:54 GMT
Hi All,

I'd like opinions on a copyright issue for the Apache MyFaces project,
which is an implementation of the Sun Java JSR127 specification for 
"JavaServer Faces", aka JSF.

Currently none of the JSF API classes (interfaces/abstract classes) as 
implemented by the MyFaces project have any javadoc user documentation 
in them. I understand that this is due to Sun's copyright over the 
actual specification and their refusal to allow that text to appear in 
alternative implementations.

This sucks very much, and clearly shows how little Sun understands open 
source.

However it sucks even more that the JSF classes distributed by MyFaces 
don't have any javadoc and users must continually reference the 
Sun-provided javadoc files from the Reference Implementation for the 
actual usage details.

As *implementing* the spec is legal, I would expect that deriving 
javadoc from the code (rather than from the spec) would also be legal. 
Of course the result is going to be very similar as the code was written
by referencing the specification, and would thus be almost as useful for
MyFaces users as the original spec docs.

I've posted essentially this same query to the MyFaces list, and the 
feeling seems to be that they are happy to add javadoc to the MyFaces 
API classes where the submitter (eg me) has explicitly derived the docs 
from the code rather than the spec.

Here's a proposed disclaimer that could be appended to the class javadoc
for each API class:

/**
  * ....docs derived from the code...
  * <p>
  * <i>Disclaimer</i><br>
  * The official definition for the behaviour of this class is the JSF
  * specification and for legal reasons the specification cannot be
  * replicated here. Any javadoc present on this class therefore
  * describes the current implementation rather than the officially
  * required behaviour, though this class has been verified
  * as complying with the specification (using the Sun TCK).
  * <p>
  * @author ....
  * @version ...
  */


Opinions?


Regards,


Simon


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not 
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions 
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for 
official ASF policies and documents. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message