> One thing that might be confusing this is that *I* had the intent of
> submitting the XNode 1.0 API to ASF while I was at Sun. This intent
> was not broadcast outside of the few programmers I was working with,
> and was never acted upon by anyone at Sun, including me. Legal never
> heard of it, nor were there any requests for forms, etc. The code is
> embedded deeply within the Java Registry Server;
As you describe it, the code described above sounds to have been paid for by
Sun, and is embedded in their product. At the least it is most likely a
work-for-hire, which means that Sun holds the copyright.
> Apart from the name "XNode", there are substantive differences between
> 1.0 and 1.1, and I can certainly change the name
Name doesn't matter. Under the radar doesn't work. Just look at the SCO
allegations.
> They don't use the same code, the XNode 1.1 documentation is not taken
> from 1.0, etc. XNode 1.1 has a listener interface that isn't in 1.0.
> But they are similar because they both perform basically the same
> function
> In fact, some of the class names are the same, but they don't share
> any code between versions.
OK, so you are representing that the version you did for Sun and the version
you are offering are two different packages similar only in name and problem
domain, and that the latter does not infringe on the former's copyright? Is
that correct?
You need to have clean title to the contribution, and you sound like you are
claiming that you do. Am I understanding, and representing, the situation
correctly?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
