[jdom-interest] jdom and dom4j

Alex Rosen arosen at silverstream.com
Tue Jun 18 10:03:27 PDT 2002

I'm no expert on this subject, but I would say that if there in fact is no
JDOM code left in dom4j, then: (1) It's questionable whether you'd call it a
"fork" or not. That jargon entry isn't clear on the subject, and I wouldn't
call it authoritative anyway. And (2) I would think that it's not a derived
work and doesn't need the JDOM license. For example if someone discovers
that GPL'd code has mistakenly been incorporated into their codebase, then a
legitimate way to fix this problem AFAIK is to rewrite that functionality
yourself. As another example, the DivX codec started out as a hacked version
of a Microsoft codec, but eventually all the parts were rewritten, so now
it's legit, IIRC.

If there is still JDOM code there, then I agree, you could ask them to
re-add the JDOM license.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdom-interest-admin at jdom.org
> [mailto:jdom-interest-admin at jdom.org]On Behalf Of Jason Hunter
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 2:05 AM
> To: Dennis Sosnoski
> Cc: bob mcwhirter; jdom
> Subject: Re: [jdom-interest] jdom and dom4j
> The first release of dom4j was based on JDOM code.  If you
> don't believe
> me, I can dig up references.  That defines it as a fork.
> http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/f/fork.html
> Over time the codebases have of course diverged.  Yet looking through
> the dom4j I do still see remnants of the old JDOM code.  I don't think
> dom4j ever did a clean room restart.
> Hmm, yet I don't see any reference to the JDOM license as is
> required.
> Even if they rewrote basically all the code over time, I'm pretty sure
> it's still a derived work legally speaking.  That puts them
> in violation
> of the JDOM license since they removed the required JDOM copyright
> notice and the other license clauses.
> -jh-

More information about the jdom-interest mailing list