|
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
I don't see why bother to save that comment. The Anonymous took my rhetorical
question ("Would you argue that Harry Potter Volume I is a derivative work
of whatever file was sent to the printer?") with it's obvious answer of
"no it is not, it is the same work in a different format" and called
me "MORONIC" for saying that it _is_ a derivative work.
The Anonymous went on to rant based on "Javadoc extracts ONLY the data that
would be in a Header File!" which is not true and ignores a main point in
my comment.
As I said, the only part of the javadoc that is not purely functional is the
English specifications which are written as part of the comments and extracted
along with the functional declarations to generate the Java Class Library
Specification document. That is exactly the portion of what is extracted by the
Javadoc program that is _not_ merely data that would be in a Header File. It
also is exactly the portion of the comments that Oracle concedes was not copied
by Google.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|