Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
Locked
12
12
Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
 
|
Hello fellow sufferers,
In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk endlessly, but never act; they just wait. Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) would immeasurably aid the effort. According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! George Hovey _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
To quote the NetRexx License:
"You may NOT: 1. sublicense, rent, lease, or assign the Program; and 2. reverse assemble, reverse compile, or otherwise translate the Program." I believe that the difference is that IBM published the BIOS source code for the PC (I still have the original PC Tech Reference manual containing it). The clean room process took that code and turned it into a specification which was then implemented by someone else who had never seen the IBM code. It seems to me that a detailed specification can only be done by people with access to the source, and it would be easier for those people to simply open source the code. IBM and RexxLA have already announced their intent - all that is lacking is for them to "just do it". NetRexx was designed after OORexx, and is (in my opinion) a better language to use with Java and the JVM. I don't think OORexx fits into the Java world very well, and that is why I didn't write an Eclipse plugin for it. Possibly RexxLA and IBM have so much invested in OORexx that they are reluctant to put any effort into the NetRexx open source effort. If so, that would be a pity. The two different languages serve different purposes, and both deserve the light of day. Bill On 5/1/2011 11:21 AM, George Hovey wrote: > Hello fellow sufferers, > > In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk endlessly, but never act; they just wait. > > Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. > > But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) would immeasurably aid the effort. > > According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. > > RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! > > George Hovey > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
Interesting, George. Further speculation could be along these lines. NetRexx/JAVA programs permeate IBM's business. If they publish it They still have to main it internally so there would soon be two versions: IBM's and THAT OTHER COPY. So IBM will still have to maintain one copy no matter what. They surely must have figured this out and it still doesn't explain any delay in publishing it... Just a real puzzle.
Another question: is NetRexxC written in C? BobH Richardson Texas USA On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, George Hovey <[hidden email]> wrote: Hello fellow sufferers, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
Bill,
I won't comment on IBM and RexxLA motives as I don't have any insider hints but... well, when IBM wants to open source something, they 'just do that'. It never took years for them to do so, even with much more bigger code-bases. Eclipse, and lots of linux kernel modules come to mind. I'm no longer optimistic about NetRexxC being open sourced, ever. Mike is no longer at IBM, René was there pushing the process from inside but he is not an IBMer any more. Who remains at IBM with any interest at getting the process through? Come on guys, the NetRexx OS file is sitting at the bottom of some legal executive's desk gathering dust. No interest whatsoever to get it done on big blue's part, there's nothing for them to win. We are poised for a never ending wait. On the other hand I think you're partially right about the Compaq clean room thing: no need for it at all. What I disagree on is on the need for publication of IBM's sources. For one, taking the NetRexxC sources and building an specification from that would be totally against the Rexx way. We already have a language spec. , which is Mike's 'The NetRexx Language' plus the supplement. More over, current NetRexxC 2.05 is non-compliant in a couple of places. It does 'do loops' which are in the Rexx spec. but not in the NetRexx one (yes, try some time!). There was also discussion here some time ago on some aspect the Eclipse plugin handled well according to the spec while the compiler didn't. Someone even proposed modifying the spec to make room for the compiler behaviour. That wouldn't be the Rexx way either. There is no need to dissect any sources to derive an specification, we already have one. Everyone would like to take advantage of Mike's superb work, of course. But if its open sourcing is not going to come into being ever, then we (that includes me) will need to step up and build an independent language processor, or behold the long, painful, NetRexx demise. Sorry for a long email. As our local troll would write: *FULL STOP* ;-) PD: please, stop blaming the RexxLA for this state of things. It's not its fault if IBM does not actually release its intellectual property. We are just an association of colleagues who pay 24$ a year. What could we possibly do to force big blue in any direction? By now, every one should know the few individuals who happen to have further information on the subject are not allowed to publicly comment on it. Oh, yes, now *TRULY FULL FULL FULL *STOP** :-) - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 12:32:44 To: <[hidden email]> Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot To quote the NetRexx License: "You may NOT: 1. sublicense, rent, lease, or assign the Program; and 2. reverse assemble, reverse compile, or otherwise translate the Program." I believe that the difference is that IBM published the BIOS source code for the PC (I still have the original PC Tech Reference manual containing it). The clean room process took that code and turned it into a specification which was then implemented by someone else who had never seen the IBM code. It seems to me that a detailed specification can only be done by people with access to the source, and it would be easier for those people to simply open source the code. IBM and RexxLA have already announced their intent - all that is lacking is for them to "just do it". NetRexx was designed after OORexx, and is (in my opinion) a better language to use with Java and the JVM. I don't think OORexx fits into the Java world very well, and that is why I didn't write an Eclipse plugin for it. Possibly RexxLA and IBM have so much invested in OORexx that they are reluctant to put any effort into the NetRexx open source effort. If so, that would be a pity. The two different languages serve different purposes, and both deserve the light of day. Bill On 5/1/2011 11:21 AM, George Hovey wrote: > Hello fellow sufferers, > > In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk endlessly, but never act; they just wait. > > Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. > > But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) would immeasurably aid the effort. > > According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. > > RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! > > George Hovey > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Robert Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Interesting, George. Further speculation could be along these lines. > NetRexx/JAVA programs permeate IBM's business. If they publish it They > still have to main it internally so there would soon be two versions: IBM's > and THAT OTHER COPY. So IBM will still have to maintain one copy no matter > what. They surely must have figured this out and it still doesn't explain > any delay in publishing it... Just a real puzzle. I remember when Windwos NT4 and Win2k source code was released on the internet (it can still be found on some torrent links). Saves much paperwork and bureaucracy... JOKE JOKE. FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
NetRexxC is written in NetRexx, of course!
Originally bootstraped from Rexx. There is still some copy of a 0.52 version for OS/2 Rexx floating around at the net. - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Hamilton <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 12:40:11 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by David Requena
>From an outsider's standpoint: Try selling someone on a NetRexx/JAVA solution to a problem. They are going to want to know what, who and where if they have any smarts at all. Perhaps many of the products IBM has sold to people contain NetRexx in the solution/product. Two local colleges want to teach NetRexx/JAVA but hesitate to do so because of the proprietary nature of the Beast.
Bob Hamilton, Engineer Richardson Texas USA On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:31 PM, David Requena <[hidden email]> wrote: Bill, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hi BobH,
> Another question: is NetRexxC written in C? As MFC has said, it is written in NetRexx. I know this sounds like a paradox but google "Wiki Bootstrapping (compilers)". It would be quite a feat to write it in C since you must produce Java classes. I guess the first compiler was written in Java. Then a second compiler written in NetRexx (to get one written in a civilized language) and compiled with the first. AFAIK nothing would prevent RexxLA from writing their first compiler in IBM NetRexx. George On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Robert Hamilton <[hidden email]> wrote: Interesting, George. Further speculation could be along these lines. NetRexx/JAVA programs permeate IBM's business. If they publish it They still have to main it internally so there would soon be two versions: IBM's and THAT OTHER COPY. So IBM will still have to maintain one copy no matter what. They surely must have figured this out and it still doesn't explain any delay in publishing it... Just a real puzzle. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert L Hamilton
Hmm, personally I could live with an IBM committed to make the product a success, though I'd rather see it open sourced. What we have now is the worst of both worlds: a superb proprietary product being stubbornly neglected by its owner. A sad story which repeats endlessly in this industry. Surely Fernando can bring account of some other instances :-( - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Hamilton <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Sun, 1 May 2011 15:00:26 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue.
Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM is hosting). If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. Should be a piece of cake. What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to hear it. -Chip- On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: > Hello fellow sufferers, > > In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait > endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason > for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk > endlessly, but never act; they just wait. > > Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made > any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at > some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. > > But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of > NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken > many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the > developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being > cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at > arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) > would immeasurably aid the effort. > > According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not > an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it > would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. > > RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper > inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the > talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they > have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate > time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! > > George Hovey > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
Chip,
I'm afraid that sarcastic replies to legitimate concerns expressed here about this subject won't accomplish much. Maybe just drive away some of the few people still interested in NetRexx, if anything at all. At any rate this is not winning any sympathy towards the RexxLA itself, I would say. Not that I disagree with your main point. - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 21:13:38 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM is hosting). If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. Should be a piece of cake. What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to hear it. -Chip- On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: > Hello fellow sufferers, > > In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait > endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason > for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk > endlessly, but never act; they just wait. > > Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made > any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at > some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. > > But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of > NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken > many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the > developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being > cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at > arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) > would immeasurably aid the effort. > > According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not > an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it > would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. > > RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper > inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the > talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they > have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate > time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! > > George Hovey > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
Chip,
Your fury is misguided. I accept that RexxLA is the only plausible vehicle for advancing NetRexx. I do not imagine that RexxLA is any way responsible for this unfortunate situation. I do not imagine that I have any skills relevant to producing a NetRexx compiler (though I would be willing to work on ancillary tasks if this step were undertaken, even to the point of joining RexxLA). If all had gone well I assume RexxLA would be hard at work on NetRexx3 (if the name has copyright issues I propose "MFC" or "Phoenix"). So the question is, what is RexxLA's response to be? Two that occur to me are
Kind Regards, George On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote: You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
Seems to me you have to have a bootstrap. At Bell Labs we toyed with the idea of writing the compiler in C. what you would need as bootstrap was GETCHR and Branch-To type functions written in machine code and the rest could be written in C-Prime it was briefly called.
One way would be to find a machine w/o JVM and see if it will run. Bob Hamilton On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM, George Hovey <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi BobH, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Requena
David,
Thank you for not disagreeing with my point. I will grant that there are many on this list (starting with René) who are "legitimately _concerned_". But the "legitimate concerns expressed here" are a near-constant stream of "Daddy, are we there yet?" posts demanding ACTION from those who have no control over the speed of traffic. I would submit that my response will accomplish no less than the demands will. Seriously, everyone: What, _specifically_, do you want René to do that he hasn't done or isn't doing? Whatever it is, it must obey the laws of physics and at least two sovereign countries, as well as the limitations of the resources available. Even had RexxLA the wherewithal, I don't think hiring a law firm to sue IBM for specific performance is likely to achieve our goal. So what was _your_ father's response to the umpteenth AWTY? from the back seat? -Chip- On 5/1/11 21:40 David Requena said: > Chip, > > I'm afraid that sarcastic replies to legitimate concerns expressed here about this subject won't accomplish much. Maybe just drive away some of the few people still interested in NetRexx, if anything at all. > > At any rate this is not winning any sympathy towards the RexxLA itself, I would say. > > Not that I disagree with your main point. > > - > Saludos / Kind regards, > David Requena > > NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions > of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions > of those who hold other opinions. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> > Sender: [hidden email] > Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 21:13:38 > To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> > Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot > > You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. > > Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" > (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby > appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. > > Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! > > Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing > exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel > free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. > > It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of > NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply > not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals > connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM > is hosting). > > If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to > appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to > IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can > all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. > > There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you > from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it > be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language > processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. > Should be a piece of cake. > > What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a > _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would > have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to > hear it. > > -Chip- > > On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: >> Hello fellow sufferers, >> >> In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait >> endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason >> for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk >> endlessly, but never act; they just wait. >> >> Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made >> any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at >> some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. >> >> But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of >> NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken >> many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the >> developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being >> cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at >> arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) >> would immeasurably aid the effort. >> >> According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not >> an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it >> would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. >> >> RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper >> inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the >> talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they >> have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate >> time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! >> >> George Hovey >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 7:16 PM, George Hovey <[hidden email]> wrote:
> If all had gone well I assume RexxLA would be hard at work on NetRexx3 (if > the name has copyright issues I propose "MFC" or "Phoenix"). So the > question is, what is RexxLA's response to be? Two that occur to me are > > continue waiting for action from IBM I remember sugesting 2 years+ ago roasting IBM publicly about their broken promise, but I was assured that doing so would *hurt* the process and that the process was moving along sowly, but moving along. So, now we have a situation where the two folks that were at IBM and had something to do with Netrexx are no longer at IBM. So if they complain the value (and public impact) of their complaint would be much less than if they had made some public comments "on the record" back then while still employed by IBM. So, if anyone wants to publicly roast their former employer for not delivering on their past promises, I´m all ears, and you know where to find me. "Inventor of Rexx language blasts IBM for open-sourcing delay" surely sounds like a good headline. And "RexxLA wants some official response" would be a good byline... ;-) FC _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Seriously, everyone: What, _specifically_, do you want René to do that he > hasn't done or isn't doing? Well, surely something like "I made a friendly conference call with Mr. XYZ at IBM, who handles open source legal stuff at Big Blue, along with Tim Honcho from the RexxLA, and we spoke about the NetRexx open sourcing case. We told him that the Humongous Community of NetRexx developers were harassing us with constant questions and nagging like ´Daddy, are we there yet?´ that we couldn´t answer, about the progress of the release process, and that we´d appreciate some comment from IBM about whether the company was working on that. He told us that... (whatever, insert answer or expletive here)" So *THEN* we would *have* an answer, as Thomas would put it. ;) And the number of "Daddy, are we there yet?" questions on this list would drop considerably. FC -- "Tools are a way to amplify our senses so that we can expand our reach in order to expropiate space, compress time, and secure ourselves. A gun extends the power of our throwing arms. An automobile is an extension of our legs. Computers amplify our memories". - T.E.D. "Space Time, and Modernity" J. Rifkin _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
George,
You don't need to convince me or RexxLA officers that a clean-room implementation of NetRexx could be an alternative to IBM source code. You need to rally the talent that might be able to pull it off. I'm sorry if I mistook your proposal for yet another "why aren't were there yet?" posting. It would be more accurate to characterize it as a "who is going to bell the cat?" question. I think it would be a shame if David, Fernando, et al. who have the skills to craft an ab-initio NetRexx processor were not available to work on the IBM code when it arrives, but if you can make a compelling case for that fork in NetRexx, there is nothing RexxLA can (or should) do. OTOH... There is school of philosophy which holds as its basic tenet that the Universe is a perverse entity. This is used to explain why the fastest way to find an expensive missing tool is to buy another, that the tickets will be delivered ten minutes after you leave for the theater, and that the payment will arrive in the same mail as the request to transfer funds from savings to avoid an overdraft. We have acquired a number of disciples from the ranks of the survivors of Just-In-Time manufacturing, who now know that JIT means "day late, dollar short" and "for want of a nail". Therefore, perhaps the best thing for RexxLA to do would be to embrace your proposal, set up and provision a clean-room project, and otherwise give up on ever seeing the IBM code. The disk should arrive the next week. -Chip- -Chip- On 5/1/11 22:16 George Hovey said: > Chip, > > Your fury is misguided. I accept that RexxLA is the only plausible > vehicle for advancing NetRexx. I do not imagine that RexxLA is any way > responsible for this unfortunate situation. I do not imagine that I > have any skills relevant to producing a NetRexx compiler (though I would > be willing to work on ancillary tasks if this step were undertaken, even > to the point of joining RexxLA). > > If all had gone well I assume RexxLA would be hard at work on NetRexx3 > (if the name has copyright issues I propose "MFC" or "Phoenix"). So > the question is, what is RexxLA's response to be? Two that occur to me are > > 1. continue waiting for action from IBM > 2. do something else > > I don't remember 2. being advanced as even a possibility. So I have > proposed leap-frogging the whole open source problem by rolling our > own. It may be totally impractical for legal reasons, or reasons within > RexxLA's structure, or whatever. But it is intended as a serious > proposal. Come, let us reason together. > > Kind Regards, > George > > > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Chip Davis <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. > > Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" > (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I > hereby appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. > > Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! > > Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing > exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. > Feel free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. > > It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of > NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply > not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals > connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that > IBM is hosting). > > If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to > appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to > IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we > can all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you > make. > > There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep > you from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard > could it be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing > language processors, but not the people who know the most about the > language. Should be a piece of cake. > > What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a > _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would > have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to > hear it. > > -Chip- > > > On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: > > Hello fellow sufferers, > > In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters > "wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the > reason for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists > talk endlessly, but never act; they just wait. > > Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM > has made any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if > they are moving at some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects > diminish with each passing year. > > But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" > implementation of NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's > control of the PC was broken many years ago. Critical to such > an effort is isolation of the developers from any knowledge of > the internals of the program being cloned; I think that might > mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at arm's length. The > existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) would > immeasurably aid the effort. > > According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights > are not an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed > such an effort it would be a positive development, as they would > have some explaining to do. > > RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the > proper inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they > have the talented manpower necessary to manage its development. > Further, they have said that that manpower will be made > available at an appropriate time. This is that time, in fact > it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! > > George Hovey > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Re: Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot
|
|
In reply to this post by Aviatrexx
Well Chip, what can I say? Keep the good job? You insist in and putting yourself at the front seat and laugh at the kids in the back one. Instead you could for instance explain why you think an independent NetRexx implementation is not feasible. Surely it is not because of a lack of (netrexx) brain power at RexxLA. We have your word that plenty of this is available, although allegedly dormant, there. Please note I'm on the RexxLA list where what I can see is that most (vocal) members use ooRexx just as a Classic Rexx interpreter because, in their own words, they "can't think in objects". My point is: that kind of stance can only be seen as arrogance from outside the RexxLA. Let's not forget that at this point (we RexxLA) only have non-accomplished appointment to get some IP from IBM as token to offer to the diminishing NetRexx community. - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of those who hold other opinions. -----Original Message----- From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 23:00:11 To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot David, Thank you for not disagreeing with my point. I will grant that there are many on this list (starting with René) who are "legitimately _concerned_". But the "legitimate concerns expressed here" are a near-constant stream of "Daddy, are we there yet?" posts demanding ACTION from those who have no control over the speed of traffic. I would submit that my response will accomplish no less than the demands will. Seriously, everyone: What, _specifically_, do you want René to do that he hasn't done or isn't doing? Whatever it is, it must obey the laws of physics and at least two sovereign countries, as well as the limitations of the resources available. Even had RexxLA the wherewithal, I don't think hiring a law firm to sue IBM for specific performance is likely to achieve our goal. So what was _your_ father's response to the umpteenth AWTY? from the back seat? -Chip- On 5/1/11 21:40 David Requena said: > Chip, > > I'm afraid that sarcastic replies to legitimate concerns expressed here about this subject won't accomplish much. Maybe just drive away some of the few people still interested in NetRexx, if anything at all. > > At any rate this is not winning any sympathy towards the RexxLA itself, I would say. > > Not that I disagree with your main point. > > - > Saludos / Kind regards, > David Requena > > NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions > of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions > of those who hold other opinions. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> > Sender: [hidden email] > Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 21:13:38 > To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> > Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot > > You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. > > Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" > (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby > appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. > > Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! > > Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing > exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel > free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. > > It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of > NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply > not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals > connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM > is hosting). > > If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to > appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to > IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can > all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. > > There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you > from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it > be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language > processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. > Should be a piece of cake. > > What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a > _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would > have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to > hear it. > > -Chip- > > On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: >> Hello fellow sufferers, >> >> In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait >> endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason >> for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk >> endlessly, but never act; they just wait. >> >> Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made >> any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at >> some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. >> >> But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of >> NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken >> many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the >> developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being >> cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at >> arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) >> would immeasurably aid the effort. >> >> According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not >> an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it >> would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. >> >> RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper >> inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the >> talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they >> have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate >> time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! >> >> George Hovey >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
David, this thread is suffering from a lack of synchronization, so I
will say simply that I think that an independent clean-room NetRexx implementation is both possible and an approach that someone other than RexxLA should look into. RexxLA is the only entity that has a prayer of being considered for the IBM code, and has a significant effort invested in it, so it is not something the Association should abandon. As there are not enough resources to do both, I believe RexxLA should continue to wait by the phone. Your characterization of the RexxLA list is not quite what I see. There are a couple of us Classic dinosaurs who post a lot, but to me there is at least as much ooRexx activity as Classic/Regina interest. I don't see the "can't think in objects" claim as arrogance as much as a recognition that (in a hopelessly dated reference) "you don't put a $20 saddle on a $10 horse": not all problems require a O-O solution. And you must admit that after 50 years, the Procedural-to-Object paradigm shift is not insignificant to someone who is no longer using it in their career. I know I used it a lot more when OS/2 was my primary platform. There was a time when most of the discussion revolved around VM, TSO, and Personal-REXX. Things change. -Chip- On 5/1/11 23:54 David Requena said: > Well Chip, what can I say? Keep the good job? > > You insist in and putting yourself at the front seat and laugh at the kids in the back one. > > Instead you could for instance explain why you think an independent NetRexx implementation is not feasible. Surely it is not because of a lack of (netrexx) brain power at RexxLA. We have your word that plenty of this is available, although allegedly dormant, there. > > Please note I'm on the RexxLA list where what I can see is that most (vocal) members use ooRexx just as a Classic Rexx interpreter because, in their own words, they "can't think in objects". > > My point is: that kind of stance can only be seen as arrogance from outside the RexxLA. Let's not forget that at this point (we RexxLA) only have non-accomplished appointment to get some IP from IBM as token to offer to the diminishing NetRexx community. > > - > Saludos / Kind regards, > David Requena > > NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions > of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions > of those who hold other opinions. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> > Sender: [hidden email] > Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 23:00:11 > To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> > Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> > Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot > > David, > > Thank you for not disagreeing with my point. I will grant that there > are many on this list (starting with René) who are "legitimately > _concerned_". > > But the "legitimate concerns expressed here" are a near-constant > stream of "Daddy, are we there yet?" posts demanding ACTION from those > who have no control over the speed of traffic. I would submit that my > response will accomplish no less than the demands will. > > Seriously, everyone: What, _specifically_, do you want René to do that > he hasn't done or isn't doing? > > Whatever it is, it must obey the laws of physics and at least two > sovereign countries, as well as the limitations of the resources > available. Even had RexxLA the wherewithal, I don't think hiring a > law firm to sue IBM for specific performance is likely to achieve our > goal. > > So what was _your_ father's response to the umpteenth AWTY? from the > back seat? > > -Chip- > > On 5/1/11 21:40 David Requena said: >> Chip, >> >> I'm afraid that sarcastic replies to legitimate concerns expressed here about this subject won't accomplish much. Maybe just drive away some of the few people still interested in NetRexx, if anything at all. >> >> At any rate this is not winning any sympathy towards the RexxLA itself, I would say. >> >> Not that I disagree with your main point. >> >> - >> Saludos / Kind regards, >> David Requena >> >> NOTE: The opinions expressed here represent the opinions >> of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions >> of those who hold other opinions. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Chip Davis <[hidden email]> >> Sender: [hidden email] >> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 21:13:38 >> To: IBM Netrexx<[hidden email]> >> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> >> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Clean Room NetRexx: Waiting for Godot >> >> You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. >> >> Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" >> (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby >> appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. >> >> Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! >> >> Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing >> exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel >> free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. >> >> It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of >> NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply >> not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals >> connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM >> is hosting). >> >> If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to >> appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to >> IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can >> all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. >> >> There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you >> from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it >> be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language >> processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. >> Should be a piece of cake. >> >> What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a >> _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would >> have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to >> hear it. >> >> -Chip- >> >> On 5/1/11 15:21 George Hovey said: >>> Hello fellow sufferers, >>> >>> In Samuel Beckett's Play "Waiting for Godot" two characters "wait >>> endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive" >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_for_Godot). No doubt the reason >>> for bringing this up is painfully clear: the protagonists talk >>> endlessly, but never act; they just wait. >>> >>> Is it fair to say that there is no objective evidence that IBM has made >>> any progress toward open-sourcing NetRexx? Even if they are moving at >>> some glacial pace, NetRexx's prospects diminish with each passing year. >>> >>> But there is a possible out: develop a "clean room" implementation of >>> NetRexx. This was the means by which IBM's control of the PC was broken >>> many years ago. Critical to such an effort is isolation of the >>> developers from any knowledge of the internals of the program being >>> cloned; I think that might mean that MFC and Rene would have to stay at >>> arm's length. The existence of a thorough published specification (TNL) >>> would immeasurably aid the effort. >>> >>> According to Wikipedia ("clean room design") software copyrights are not >>> an obstacle, but patents are. But even if IBM opposed such an effort it >>> would be a positive development, as they would have some explaining to do. >>> >>> RexxLA (as represented by Rene, Chip) sees themselves as the proper >>> inheritors of NetRexx and have made the point that they have the >>> talented manpower necessary to manage its development. Further, they >>> have said that that manpower will be made available at an appropriate >>> time. This is that time, in fact it's way overdue. RexxLA do your stuff! >>> >>> George Hovey >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
Chip,
Many months ago I sent emails to both Rene and Virgil asking what the hold up is. Virgil said politely that he could not comment, and that Rene would be best suited to answer. The implication was that the ball was in the RexxLA court. I specifically asked Rene who was holding up the works, but he did not answer my email. Based on that, I can only assume that it is RexxLA that is dragging its feet by not taking the initiative and working through the OSSC process, possibly because RexxLA lacks the necessary resources, motivation or management skills. Could it be that each side is assuming the other will perform various tasks? I would certainly welcome finding out differently. Instead of the sarcasm, as an insider why don't you privately discuss the situation with Rene and Virgil, get to the bottom of the deadlock, and tell us what the real story is? Exactly who is waiting for whom to do what? What I want Rene to do is to answer the question: Has RexxLA done everything in its power to comply with the IBM OSSC process? If he can truthfully say yes and will document it, then we can legitimately make the claim that IBM is intentionally not following through on its promise to open the NetRexx source. And if that is true, then we have the basis for loud complaints to IBM Corporate, IBM legal and a publicity campaign with the open source community. On the other hand, if RexxLA is not performing, why not? Frankly I see all the secrecy as just a cover up. A little sunshine might work wonders. Is that a concrete enough? Bill PS. By the way, other than Rene, who are the current RexxLA board members and officials? I'm wondering why they do not join this discussion. On 5/1/2011 5:13 PM, Chip Davis wrote: > You're right, George. The time is 'way overdue. > > Therefore, in my capacity as a named "proper inheritor of NetRexx" (and without any authority or permission from RexxLA or IBM) I hereby appoint YOU to be the Lead Developer of Open NetRexx. > > Congratulations and Huzzahs all around! > > Now, by the end of the week I expect to see a Project Plan detailing exactly what you intend to do with the IBM NetRexx source code. Feel free to get Bill, Thomas, and Fernando to help you. > > It is not that RexxLA "sees themselves as the proper inheritors of NetRexx" as you snarkily put it. It is the fact that IBM is simply not going to give their IP to a loose aggregation of individuals connected by nothing more substantial than a free listserver (that IBM is hosting). > > If you prefer, I suspect that at this point René would be happy to appoint you to be the official NetRexx Transition Representative to IBM (which will require you to be a RexxLA member of course) so we can all see what sort of Sisyphus (or Estragon for that matter) you make. > > There is absolutely nothing RexxLA (or anyone else) can do to keep you from starting on a clean-room version of NetRexx. How hard could it be? You have TNRL and Thomas' expertise at writing language processors, but not the people who know the most about the language. Should be a piece of cake. > > What part of "It's in IBM's hands" is not clear? If anyone has a _concrete_ suggestion for an action that René could take that would have a positive effect on the process, I'm sure we would all like to hear it. > > -Chip- -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web LIVE Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology - http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |