Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hconnellan on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
I'm wondering how something that is not copyrightable can be GPLed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
The GPL is a copyright licence, I very much hope that the judge is going to rule
they can't be copyright and therefore cannot be GPLed.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 10:08 AM EDT |
The API documentation (at least the HTML version of the API documentation)
comes from running the javadoc program on the source .java files. The javadoc
program recognizes special documentation comments that start "/**" and end "*/".
E.g. somewhere there's an InputStream.java file, and almost everything on the
HTML page documenting the java.io
.InputStream class comes from the documentation comments in that source
file. (The exceptions are the list of "Direct Known Subclasses", which javadoc
derives from the source .java files of classes that extend java.io.InputStream
and the list of methods inherited from java.lang.Object, which comes from an
Object.java source file.)
So if InputStream.java and the rest of the
source files that go into the implementation of the API are GPLd, then the API
documentation is GPLd. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Giants - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 04:38 AM EDT
- No. - Authored by: stegu on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT
|