Mark Wielaard writes:
> I just looked at these two jsr's and both are not even available through
> a click-through. (Strangely enough both just point to the sun 1.5.0
> implementation documentation, which as far as I know doesn't include the
> specs at all.)
Yes I was a little surprised to see thi
David Holmes wrote:
The JCP also doesn't require the (final) specifications to be provided
under a click-wrap.
Being involved in this at present with another JSR I can assure you that the
JCP does require a click-through license for downloading specs.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it wou
> > Being involved in this at present with another JSR I can assure
> > you that the JCP does require a click-through license for downloading
> > specs.
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it would be useful if you could
> point to a specific document that states such a requriement.
I sho
David Holmes wrote:
I should said PMO rather than JCP. The JCP document itself doesn't cover
this, however the PMO seems to require it. If you look at the Spec lead
Guide on jcp.org you'll see that for Proposed Final Draft "The PMO will
provide the spec license ..." and then for Final Approval Ball
> However, I'm sure Spec Leads can pick their license terms, at least
> within certain limits. And some JSRs are "open-source", at least the
> implementation.
I think the spec leads can, within-limits, define the terms for the RI and
TCK - because in a sense they "own" that. But they don't own th
David Holmes wrote:
GNU is not Unix, and GNU Classpath is not (the core) Java (library).
We just don't have a cute acronym to express that.
I don't believe that not saying the "Java" word when describing what GNU
Classpath is lets you off the hook here. If nothing else the classes and
API's in the
Per Bothner wrote:
>> I do? The API's are not as far as I am aware trademarked. It seems to
me
>> that defining a set of API's that match Sun's Java API's would be
copying
>> them - hence infringing on copyright.
>Implementing a specification is *not* copying the specification.
This is correct. U
Dalibor,
> Till then, it's all 'what-if' speculation. Sun has tolerated[4]
> clean-room efforts like Kaffe since 1996, without threatening legal
> action, afaict, so I don't see why they should change their minds now.
I hear everything you said. But the issue that started this discussion was
whet
Hi,
On Sat, 2004-10-02 at 14:34, Robert Schuster wrote:
> I found the official specification papers for the java.bean.XMLDecoder
> which is part of JSR-57 andwant to download them but they are wrapped in
> a license
> agreement. It does not look dangerous to me but I am cautious and wait
> unti
Mark,
> For GNU Classpath we only use publicly available information. Please do
> not refer to proprietary information while working on GNU Classpath.
>
> If this document is the only way to make a fully compatible
> implementation for the XMLEncode and XMLDecoder then please let me know
> and I r
Hi David,
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 01:01, David Holmes wrote:
> I think you will find that all the Java specifications are protected by a
> similar license (which basically preserves the namespace usage and requires
> complete conformance from an implementation).
It got worse the last years. Specs,
Mark Wielaard wrote:
Programmers will use published books
or publicly published articles to write their programs, so we better
make sure we are at least compatible with what they use/expect.
Programmers will use Sun's JavaDoc-generated API documents. If anyone
reports a bug, that is what they will
Hi,
On Mon, 2004-10-04 at 20:22, Per Bothner wrote:
> is it safe to depend on books and articles that may be the result of
> unpermitted actions?
When I discussed this with Richard Stallman he said the main reasoning
behind recommending a published book as primary reference when working
on GNU C
Mark,
> It got worse the last years. Specs, or at least draft specs would be
> published publicly without having any click-through license to which
> people have to consent. There are also some nice counter examples though
> of expert groups doing everything publicly (JSR133 about the memory
> mod
Mark Wielaard wrote:
When I discussed this with Richard Stallman he said the main reasoning
behind recommending a published book as primary reference when working
on GNU Classpath is that if a book publisher can/has produced a book to
explain the system,
He may have been thinking of books published
Hi,
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 00:54, David Holmes wrote:
> > It got worse the last years. Specs, or at least draft specs would be
> > published publicly without having any click-through license to which
> > people have to consent. There are also some nice counter examples though
> > of expert groups d
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 06:39, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> The JCP also doesn't require the (final) specifications to be provided
> under a click-wrap. As these JSR's show it it perfectly fine to publish
> the specification, reference implementation and test compatability kit
> in the public domain. (Unfo
17 matches
Mail list logo
