W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Copyright license for ElementTraversal Java interface

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:58:31 -0500
Message-ID: <496ACDF7.90808@w3.org>
To: public-webapps@w3.org, mrglavas@ca.ibm.com

Hi, Cameron-

My opinion is that the editor of the Element Traversal spec simply
didn't know what he was doing (no offense).

I would suggest that a separate file be made with the appropriate Java
interface file, with the appropriate license, and that it be linked from
an errata (and later a second edition).

Would this work for you, and for the rest of the WebApps WG?


Cameron McCormack wrote (on 1/11/09 11:04 PM):
> Hello WG.
> A question[1] just came up within the ASF about the license under which
> the ElementTraversal Java interface is made.
> Unlike some other W3C specifications, where Java interface files are
> made available as separate files (perhaps within a ZIP file) with a
> header at the top that states that the file is licensed under the W3C
> Software License[2], the Element Traversal specification includes the
> Java interface inline.  The specification itself is licensed under the
> W3C Document License[3], which likely isn’t suitable for inclusion in
> ASF software distributions.
> Some time ago, I added the Java interface to the Batik project’s
> repository[4].  The main contents of that file do not exactly match the
> text that is in the specification; the formatting is different.  I did
> however add the Apache License header to the top of that file, as is
> done with other non-external source code.  Given that the contents of
> the file don’t exactly match the text in the spec (but is quite
> similar), and could reasonably have been generated from the IDL, I’m not
> sure if including that header was the correct course of action.
> So my questions are:
> 1. Should I replace the ElementTraversal.java file in the Batik
> repository with one that is identical to the text in the Element
> Traversal spec, but with a W3C license header at the top, and if so,
> which one?
> 2. Should the W3C be explicitly licensing the ElementTraversal.java file
> under the W3C Software License?
> Thanks,
> Cameron
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/lgqmiixh4l3bdugv
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
> [3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231
> [4] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/batik/trunk/sources/org/w3c/dom/ElementTraversal.java
Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 04:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC