Re: Usage of RFC documentation for Javadoc

[Wolfgang Baer]

Hi Mark,

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
[...]
> Yes, you can use the text of that RFC for the documentation of the
> classes. If you look into our LICENSE file you see that the same is
> already done for org/ietf/jgss using RFC 2853.

Good news for our documentation :-)
> There are a couple of steps to follow when doing this.
>
> - We need to inform FSF legal (licensing@) that we wish to incorporate
>   such text. Can you give me the RFC numbers? Then I inform them and
>   include the text from the RFC. (We need to double check since not all
>   RFCs come with precisely the same permission text.)

RFC 2910 IPP/1.1: Encoding and Transport
RFC 2911 IPP/1.1: Model and Semantics

RFC 3196 IPP/1.1: Implementor's Guide (not yet used for documentation)

As far as I can see all have the same copyright statement as
included in my former mail.

> - We need to add a similar note as already done for org/ietf/jgss to the
>   LICENSE file. That file should list all legal text so the user has
>   one place to review them all.

I will prepare a patch if it is approved from FSF legal. Most likely
the RFC documentation will be used for the javax.print.attribute.standard
package (and maybe other javax.print classes - we will see) and all the
internal gnu.ipp/cups stuff which is in preparation.

> - Each file that includes documentation from the RFC should have the
>   full permission statement as part of the first comment block just
>   after the standard boilerplate. See for an example the file
>   org/ietf/jgss/Oid.java. This makes sure each file as all notices
>   covering the work so people can look it up even in isolation. And that
>   way the text is automatically picked up by gjdoc -licensetext so that
>   the generated documentation includes all notices automatically.

I had a look at this example. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

Regards,
Wolfgang