You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to batik-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch> on 2005/08/28 11:15:34 UTC
Moving W3C licensed code
I've started a first attempt at moving (or rather copying first) the W3C-licensed
classes is Batik's repo. I've stopped for now due to a few observations
I made:
- The smil class EventTimeControl doesn't contain the W3C license header
and the other smil class is missing. It seems to make sense to add the
original two files from the following URL to the XML Commons repository
instead of copying the Batik files.
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/dom/smil/
- Am I right that there are currently no SVG 1.2 specific Java bindings
and the current classes in Batik's Trunk are still the SVG 1.1 Java
Bindings? Have there been any modifications on these files? I'm inclined
also to use the original files from the W3C distribution instead of
copying the ones from the Batik repo because of possible modifications.
The problem is the third item in the W3C software license [1]. Any
modifications need to be documented.
- There have been modifications on the SAC classes in [2]. According to
[1] these modifications need to be documented. Are they?
- The svg DOM classes contain an interface EventListenerInitializer
which is not originally a W3C file but actually Apache licensed. IMO
this files resides in the wrong place in this case. What to do with this
one?
[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
[2] http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=201436&view=rev
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Moving W3C licensed code
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
On 28.08.2005 11:34:30 Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Hi Jeremias.
>
> Jeremias Maerki:
> > - The smil class EventTimeControl doesn't contain the W3C license header
> > and the other smil class is missing. It seems to make sense to add the
> > original two files from the following URL to the XML Commons repository
> > instead of copying the Batik files.
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/dom/smil/
>
> Ok.
>
> > - Am I right that there are currently no SVG 1.2 specific Java bindings
> > and the current classes in Batik's Trunk are still the SVG 1.1 Java
> > Bindings?
>
> That's right. There isn't any official Java binding published for the
> SVG 1.2 stuff.
Good to know, thanks.
> > Have there been any modifications on these files? I'm inclined
> > also to use the original files from the W3C distribution instead of
> > copying the ones from the Batik repo because of possible modifications.
>
> I think all but org/w3c/dom/svg/EventListenerInitializer.java come from
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/java-binding.zip. Though that interface does
> come from http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/java.html.
Ok.
> > The problem is the third item in the W3C software license [1]. Any
> > modifications need to be documented.
> >
> > - There have been modifications on the SAC classes in [2]. According to
> > [1] these modifications need to be documented. Are they?
>
> So these are just javadoc fixes to avoid warnings when building the
> documentation. Must these be documented in each file or can there be a
> Batik-wide W3C-MODIFICATIONS file or some such?
IANAL, but AFAIK documentation is also a piece of work and any
modification makes it a derivative work, so yes, the modifications need
to be documented.
> > - The svg DOM classes contain an interface EventListenerInitializer
> > which is not originally a W3C file but actually Apache licensed. IMO
> > this files resides in the wrong place in this case. What to do with this
> > one?
>
> Well the java.html webpage doesn't say what package this interface
> should be in. It would seem sensible, to allow multiple Java SVG
> implementations to use the same classes, that it is in some known
> package like org.w3c.dom.svg.
I interpret this page as saying that this interface is to be placed in
the top-level directory (i.e. no package name). Given that it was
published in the spec it would appear to me that the code is licensed
under either the W3C documentation license or the W3C software license.
Probably the former because of its location. But the latter seems more
reasonable. Stupid dilemma. Given this information I think it should be
reasonably safe to put this class with its present package (for
backwards-compatibility) in XML Commons under the W3C software license
with a special note somewhere where this file comes from. Does that make
sense?
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: Moving W3C licensed code
Posted by Cameron McCormack <ca...@aka.mcc.id.au>.
Hi Jeremias.
Jeremias Maerki:
> - The smil class EventTimeControl doesn't contain the W3C license header
> and the other smil class is missing. It seems to make sense to add the
> original two files from the following URL to the XML Commons repository
> instead of copying the Batik files.
>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/dom/smil/
Ok.
> - Am I right that there are currently no SVG 1.2 specific Java bindings
> and the current classes in Batik's Trunk are still the SVG 1.1 Java
> Bindings?
That's right. There isn't any official Java binding published for the
SVG 1.2 stuff.
> Have there been any modifications on these files? I'm inclined
> also to use the original files from the W3C distribution instead of
> copying the ones from the Batik repo because of possible modifications.
I think all but org/w3c/dom/svg/EventListenerInitializer.java come from
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/java-binding.zip. Though that interface does
come from http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/java.html.
> The problem is the third item in the W3C software license [1]. Any
> modifications need to be documented.
>
> - There have been modifications on the SAC classes in [2]. According to
> [1] these modifications need to be documented. Are they?
So these are just javadoc fixes to avoid warnings when building the
documentation. Must these be documented in each file or can there be a
Batik-wide W3C-MODIFICATIONS file or some such?
> - The svg DOM classes contain an interface EventListenerInitializer
> which is not originally a W3C file but actually Apache licensed. IMO
> this files resides in the wrong place in this case. What to do with this
> one?
Well the java.html webpage doesn't say what package this interface
should be in. It would seem sensible, to allow multiple Java SVG
implementations to use the same classes, that it is in some known
package like org.w3c.dom.svg.
Cameron
--
e-mail : cam (at) mcc.id.au icq : 26955922
web : http://mcc.id.au/ msn : cam-msn (at) aka.mcc.id.au
office : +61399055779 jabber : heycam (at) jabber.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org