[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)

• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:32:51 -0700 (MST)

> > CONCLUSION: The complete implementation of XSLT 1.0 using the platform
> > other than Java is not possible without the permission from Sun
> > Microsystems, Inc.
>
> I think you are mistaken.  The facts are:
>
> 1. The JDK 1.1 specification describes a process to generate a string
> from
>
> - a floating point number,
> - a format string, and
> - a collection of named parameters
>
> 2. The XSLT Rec requires you to implement this process.
>
> 3. The JDK 1.1 specification is copyrighted by Sun.
>
> However, implementing a process described by a copyrighted document does
> not require the permission of the copyright holder. That's what patents
> are all about: if the JDK number formatting was patented, there would be
> a problem. You would only violate Sun's copyright if you copied the
> specification.
>
> (In the case of a Java interface, in order to implement the interface
> you need to create a .java file, which would arguably be a copy of part
> of the specification.  No such situation arises with XSLT number
> formatting.)

OK.  I'll leave the legal issues to others.  However, since one of the
XSLT editors has shown up on this thread, can I ask about the technical
issues?  Why did the WG subjected non-Java implementors to this nonsense?

There are many more widely used and implemented methods of specifying
number formatting, such as *printf.

Why so much trouble to specify one sort of output formatting?  If XSLT
wanted to concern itself with low-level string representational details,
why not have a general-purpose system for the task?

If it was to provide a crutch to Java's poor string manipulation and
formatting facilities, why was this not left to extennsion writers?

> Note that Microsoft has implemented format-number, which I doubt it
> would have done if its lawyers thought it needed permission from Sun to
> do so.

How nice for Microsoft.  They have the developers to spare on an
pointless exercise.  Not all of us do.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@f...               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)
    • From: Anatole Tartakovsky <anatolet@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Fighting Software Patents
• Next by Date: Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)
• Previous by thread: Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)
• Next by thread: Re: Place under sun (was: XPointer and Sun patent)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread