Hi, I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an Apache-licensed file.
Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But if not, then we must follow the relevant copyright laws. I definitely interpreted the original JSF1.1/JSF1.2 specs as NOT permitting copying of javadoc from the spec into our classes. Do you happen to have a link (or even the email subject line) for the earlier discussion? I must have missed that... Note that for dtd and schema files it is pretty easy to avoid copyright issues; the vast majority of such files is data-structure definition that has only one possible form, and therefore is not copyrightable. Simply taking someone else's file is still wrong here, but the original can be used as a "reference" for the non-copyrightable technical details, so creating the new version is effectively pretty close to "just retyping". Javadoc, however, is prose writing which is creative expression. So it should *not* be used as a reference when writing new javadoc; that would be plagiarism. I did create a significant amount of javadoc for the JSF1.1 and JSF1.2 implementations (though still far from complete coverage); my approach was to (a) ensure that the implementation matched the specification description (referencing the original docs) (b) go away for a while (c) some time later, write the javadoc based on the *code* (not using the original docs as a reference) >From your other email: <quote> p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it only refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for offline users nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping JavaDoc out is of course a valid option as well if the community wishes it, but it also implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't be any good. </quote> I think the javadoc that was specifically written for myfaces classes is more useful for end-users than the spec stuff (more helpful, less picky technical detail). But yes it is a minority of classes, with most still just linking to the external specs. I'm sure nobody *wants* to keep javadoc external to the classes, but recreating all the docs is a big task, and the alternative (copying) was IMO just not legal. Yes, it's annoying but copyright is copyright. And if we don't follow the law then the spec copyright-holder has every right to sue. IANAL and all that. Regards, Simon K. Simon Lessard schrieb: > Hi Simon K., > > We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually > retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since > it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed. > > ~ Simon > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into > myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc > descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission > would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file > licensed under the Apache license... > > In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy > any javadoc from the spec.. > > Regards, > Simon > > >> Simon Lessard wrote: > >> > >>> To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and > @return, > >>> which > >>> is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and > doesn't > >>> specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it > better to match > >>> the official API or to make checkstyle happy? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. > Personally > >>>> I > >>>> would give higher priority to completed comments than > checkstyle whining, > >>>> what you guys think about it? > >>>> > >>>> > >
