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

Re: Copyright license for ElementTraversal Java interface

From: Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:20:29 -0500
To: public-webapps@w3.org
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE41970D3.86DF0996-ON8525753C.00229F51-8525753C.0022C8BE@ca.ibm.com>

Hi Doug,

Would it be possible to include the Javadoc (i.e. the text from the
specification describing the interface and its methods) in the source file?
This would be very helpful for users.

Thanks.

Michael Glavassevich
XML Parser Development
IBM Toronto Lab
E-mail: mrglavas@ca.ibm.com
E-mail: mrglavas@apache.org

Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote on 01/11/2009 11:58:31 PM:

> 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?
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
> 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 06:21:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT