XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Luca Passani <passani AT eunet.no>]

John Cowan wrote:

> Hard luck for him and his employers.  They always have the alternative
> of redoing it themselves, probably not as well.  It's a business
> decision whether evaluating the license is cheaper or more expensive
> than reimplementing XOM.  Also, as Michael Kay says, people can pay
> ERH for exceptions.
>
>  
Not so. Sometimes there is innovation happening inside corporations, 
which wouldn't happen
anywhere else for a variety of reasons. It's just that in the beginning 
the investment is not
big enough to involve the legal department from the inception (also, 
American legal departments
say no by default to any requests coming from their own developers. You 
only get support when
the VP up ahead from the developer talks to the VP on top of the lawyer).

What's ERH?

anyway, if there was a possibility to license XOM for money, I would be 
perfectly happy.
WURFL is open source, but if someone some day asked me to do some work 
and license them WURFL
and all of the dependencies, I would be more than happy to get away with 
letting a customer
pay Elliotte 400 bucks and avoid any XOM license issues.

I don't want to sound arrogant, but would I be wrong if I suspected that 
you have never been exposed to the
internal  politics of a medium-to-large sized american software company?

Luca