Re: Copyright license for ElementTraversal Java interface

I would like to add the wish to add this file as a jar within a W3C  
maven repository,

maven is a build system based on declarative dependencies marking.
The objective of a W3C maven repository would be to offer, in a way  
transparent to people that "just checkout souces", a linking to W3C  
code without this code being hosted at an external project such as the  
Apache Software Foundation.

I think what bothers several Apache developers is to have source code  
in their repository which is "not wished to be changed". Allowing  
download form W3C would prevent that common objection.

A very long discussion happened about W3C sources:

In terms of organization, it is a very simple http directory layout,  
and the indication of the repository for the people using that  
deployment. All maven downloads are cached so there's really no  
performance penalty.

thanks in advance


Le 12-janv.-09 ŗ 05:58, Doug Schepers a ťcrit :

> 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 isnít suitable for inclusion in
>> ASF software distributions.
>> Some time ago, I added the Java interface to the Batik projectís
>> 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 donít exactly match the text in the spec (but is quite
>> similar), and could reasonably have been generated from the IDL,  
>> Iím not
>> sure if including that header was the correct course of action.
>> So my questions are:
>> 1. Should I replace the 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  
>> file
>> under the W3C Software License?
>> Thanks,
>> Cameron
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]

Received on Monday, 12 January 2009 12:25:36 UTC