In message <17c6771e0902260513g17883e6dsc710a8e4aee30...@mail.gmail.com>,
Andrew John Hughes writes:
>
> 2009/2/24 Nathan Beyer <ndbe...@apache.org>:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Andrew John Hughes
> > <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/2/23 Nathan Beyer <nbe...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> How about a javadoc tool baseline implementation?
> >>
> >> There are already at least three such tools under FOSS licenses. Why
> >> would we need another?
> >
> > Are any under an ALv2 compatible license that we can package?
>
> I believe gjdoc and Sun's javadoc are under the GPL. If Apache
> Harmony can't be used to run Java programs licensed under the GPL, you
> may as well give up now.
I think you missed the point of Nathan's question. The key terms
were 'ALv2 compatible' and 'package'. Running programs and
packaging/distributing them are entirely separate issues.
Nathan was trying to determine if any of the implementations you mention
might help in meeting the goals of this project. As stated on the
project homepage, a goal of the Apache Harmony Project is to create:
A compatible, independent implementation of the Java SE 5 JDK under
the Apache License v2
If there was a suitable javadoc under a compatible license[0] that we
could include in an ALv2 distribution then we certainly would consider
it over re-inventing the wheel. But I don't believe there is one?
When the license is compatible, we are just as happy to reuse existing
components from other projects - such as Xerces, Xalan, BCEL, and
concurrent. Other Java projects with different goals may be pragmatic
about what they decide is compatible with their choice of license.
Getting back to the topic of GSoC 2009, javadoc would not be top of my
priority list for tools to implement for Harmony. A jdb implementation
would probably be my most-wanted tool (probably built on the eclipse
jdi). The reasons for this is that I think that jdb is a tool where
there is quite a lot of room of improvement/adding-value (such as adding
JSR-45 support). I expect this would be more satisfying for a student
than implementing javadoc.
Regards,
Mark.
[0] There is some discussion of what is classed as compatible at:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
