Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: FW: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:38:33 -0700
- Thread-index: AcJapZUSSPXxnlCZSAm5/8m6Awn5+gAIKB3M
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)
From: K. Ari Krupnikov [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thu 9/12/2002 2:48 PM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: SAX is not a read-only API (wa RE: [xml-dev] re: XML SIG 17...)
"Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> This is why I asked about an API being Open Source(tm) because the notion of freely distributable source code and interface definitions seem to be orthogonal to me. POSIX or the C++ STL do not have freely available documentation yet there are Open Source implementations of both (although I'm not sure there is a certified POSIX compliant Open Source implementation).
I'm still fighting OASIS for the right to post to xml-dev; you can
post this back to the list if you want to.
One way to define an API is with .h files or Java (tm) interface .java
or .class files. The licenses on those files may or may not allow you
to link your code against them. As it happens, SAX .java files are in
the public domain, meeting the OSI requirements.