Re: Possibility of introducing non-Apache license DTDDoc into build system?
: Its would be more convenient to build the docs automatically on the servers : rather than upload generated copies manually but I can see that may not be : possible. : I guess I'm happy to maintain the generated docs manually and add an ant task : for anyone else who has DTDdoc installed locally and wants to update the docs. i wasn't suggesting it's not possible, just that there are workarrounds in the event that there are licensing issues which prhibit us distributing it. -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possibility of introducing non-Apache license DTDDoc into build system?
>>it's just a tool for generating HTML docs from the DTD right? Yep. >>the generated HTML docs could be commited to the repository Its would be more convenient to build the docs automatically on the servers rather than upload generated copies manually but I can see that may not be possible. I guess I'm happy to maintain the generated docs manually and add an ant task for anyone else who has DTDdoc installed locally and wants to update the docs. Cheers Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possibility of introducing non-Apache license DTDDoc into build system?
: Anyone know what the procedure/licensing implications are if I wanted to add a : build dependency on DTDDoc? It looks like historically the Struts project used : DTDDoc for some of their documentation but that was using Maven 2 and it looks : to me like DTDDoc is not entirely Apache licensed see: : http://dtddoc.sourceforge.net/license.txt even if we can't included DTDDoc in the code base/release, this seems like a similar issue to that of JFlex when standardAnalyzer was changed ... it's just a tool for generating HTML docs from the DTD right? so the build system could assume a developer has DTDDoc installed if they attempt to run "ant dtd-docs" and fail otherwise. the generated HTML docs could be commited to the repository (just like hte generated StandardTokenizer.java is commited to the repository) so casual developers don't *have* to have DTDDoc installed to read the documentation. right? -Hoss - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Possibility of introducing non-Apache license DTDDoc into build system?
Is it something you can model after GData and the DB stuff, whereby it downloads the necessary dependencies as part of the build? Otherwise, I would ask on legal-discuss On Oct 2, 2007, at 6:18 PM, markharw00d wrote: I've put together DTDs documenting the full XML query syntax and used comments/examples that a DTDDoc ant task can turn into useful hyperlinked HTML help documents. Anyone know what the procedure/licensing implications are if I wanted to add a build dependency on DTDDoc? It looks like historically the Struts project used DTDDoc for some of their documentation but that was using Maven 2 and it looks to me like DTDDoc is not entirely Apache licensed see: http:// dtddoc.sourceforge.net/license.txt Any advice gladly received. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Possibility of introducing non-Apache license DTDDoc into build system?
I've put together DTDs documenting the full XML query syntax and used comments/examples that a DTDDoc ant task can turn into useful hyperlinked HTML help documents. Anyone know what the procedure/licensing implications are if I wanted to add a build dependency on DTDDoc? It looks like historically the Struts project used DTDDoc for some of their documentation but that was using Maven 2 and it looks to me like DTDDoc is not entirely Apache licensed see: http://dtddoc.sourceforge.net/license.txt Any advice gladly received. Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
