New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
Locked
New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
 
|
How should the Licence header read for new files?
They will not be IBM related. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
I would suggest to use
/* * Copyright (C) 2012 - [your name] * * Distributed under the ICU 1.8.1 Licence with NO WARRANTIES of ANY kind. * See LICENSE for the licence and information on using, copying, modifying, * and distributing this program. * */ This is what we did for NJPipes and some other contributions. best regards, René. On 25 nov. 2012, at 10:52, Jason Martin <[hidden email]> wrote: > How should the Licence header read for new files? > > They will not be IBM related. > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Jason Martin
Same *question* from me, Rene, please!
My *contributions* on www.kenai.org, namely: org.netrexx.thsitc.runtime.compatibility * as well as* org.netrexx.thsitc.utils *Have been *never* FUNDED by IBM (sorry to say)* as well as: www.Rexx2Nrx.com, www.db-123.com, www.thsitc.com So what? Why shall we use the *ICU* Licence, *claiming that* IBM has any of those *property rights*, att all! Frank question, from my side ... *Frank answer*, please, as well ... (when possible and/or wanted *and* needed) Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria. ============================================================= Am 25.11.2012 10:52, schrieb Jason Martin: How should the Licence header read for new files? --
http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Yahoo ID: [hidden email] FaceBook ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team (www.netrexx.org) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
|
|
A copyright consists of three things: A specification of a title,
the author and date, and the material covered by the copyright.
In this case, the text of the ICU license itself (not anything covered by the permission it provides) is copywritten by IBM and others. That is why each element of the material covered by the permission has its own copyright statement. On 11/26/2012 12:17 PM, Thomas
Schneider wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Hi Bill, *and all others*:
That's why I'm introducint the *Fair Share Licence*, shortly called FSL.Licence.txt, for any and all of *my contributions* Source *is Opened* (on www.kenai.com, project NetRexx, there, *and* PP, and DB-123, etc, etc! www.netrexx.org does *own* org.netrexx.thsitc.runtime.compatibiliy, *and* org.netrexx.thsitc.utils *as I did * sponsor this soft to RexxLA, 2 years ago, by *intent*! And, as I am *never* chaining my mind, it's now *owned* by RexxLA! The FSL Licence, by the way, does have other *rules*: Anybody seeling the SOFT is getting a *Fair Share* (50%, in my terms) AnyBody *contributing*, as well! Hence: *Source Opened*, *but* *Author* does get 50 % share of Net Income of any sales! *Contributor* does get 50 % of Net Income of any sales (measured by his: CONTRIBUTION) Full Stop! Massa Thomas ;-) =========================================================. Am 26.11.2012 18:22, schrieb Bill Fenlason: A copyright consists of three things: A specification of a title, the author and date, and the material covered by the copyright. --
http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Yahoo ID: [hidden email] FaceBook ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team (www.netrexx.org) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
Re: New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
Bill,
I question your view that the ICU license itself is copyrighted. At http://site.icu-project.org/ "ICU" is defined as a "set of C/C++ and Java libraries" and further that "ICU is released under a nonrestrictive open source license". The link points to the license itself, which is headed "ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later". The copyright holder is "International Business Machines Corporation and others". My interpretation of this is that the material being copyrighted and licensed is all versions, from 1.8.1 on, of the ICU library, and NOT the license itself, which is freely available for anyone to use after substituting, of course, the title of their material and its copyright holder. I think IBM not only permits others to use the wording of this license, but encourages its use as a model of openness, simplicity and clarity. Perhaps someone with contacts at IBM could get an opinion on this issue. On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Bill Fenlason <[hidden email]> wrote:
-- "One can live magnificently in this world if one knows how to work and how to love."Â --Â Leo Tolstoy _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
Re: New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Martin
I think this was dicussed before but it is easy to forget.
It just is not easy to understand the way it is stated and sometimes it just confuses simple folk like me. I just want the file I submit to be worded right and belong to NetRexx and rexxla. Not tied to any 3rd party. There should be a standard format to follow. For now, I will do like René says. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
Re: New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Thanks, Mike, personally from me, for
*this clarification*
However, Rene & Mike, *as* Rene has been (together with you, and other members of the RexxLA Board, those times) +*the major Driver in all those Negotiations*,m ***************************** * AND. More importanly * ***************************** IBM did cease any and all Rexx support meanwhile, *and* IBM is trying to convert ancient *Rexx* applications to: IBM EGL (IBM's Enterprise Generation Language, *you for sure do know* (Developed by National Rose, a daughter Company of IBM, meanwhile, you also do know, for sure ... It might be the *right time* now, to co-operate, *on all Levels*, maybe ?? Otherwise: Rexx, Regina, ooRexx, NetRexx, etc etc etc will be: DEAD (as Kermit Kiser did already say!) Quod DIXI, dixi! Quod scripsi, scripsi! Let us. *please* co-work! So many *brilliant people* there outside! BUT: Times *are changing* (at least; i *do recognize*, and see, as well) Java is evolving, C# sonstantly does *steal* and *rename* Java concepts, ... So What ? Thomas. ============================================================== Am 26.11.2012 21:27, schrieb Mike Cowlishaw:
--
http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Yahoo ID: [hidden email] FaceBook ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team (www.netrexx.org) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jason Martin
+1!!! (Me too!)
=============================================== Am 26.11.2012 21:20, schrieb Jason Martin: I think this was dicussed before but it is easy to forget. --
http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Yahoo ID: [hidden email] FaceBook ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team (www.netrexx.org) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Cowlishaw
If the ICU license is printed on a piece of paper, on its own it is
a copywritten document. The copyright is claimed by IBM. Weather
on not the copyright is valid is a separate matter.
The point is that a copyright has nothing to do with the meaning of the words in the document. That is why a valid copyright can be claimed on gibberish. A crossword puzzle without clues can have a copyright. I could write a piece of code and distribute it under the ICU as long as I included a verbatim copy of the ICU. IBM would have no claim on my work, but they are claiming copyright of the text in the ICU. On 11/26/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Cowlishaw
wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
Re: New NetRexx file additions and Licence header.
|
|
Bill, if you are referring to the line:
Copyright (c) 1995-2012 International Business Machines
Corporation and others
at the start of the ICU licence, that applies to the work
being licensed, not to the text of the licence itself. The text of
the licence simply clarifies and extends that first line. If that
line referred to the licence itself then there would be no claim of copyright on
the work (the ICU licence need only be referenced in the original work, not
included in it -- it is only copies of the work that have to include a copy of
the licence).
I use further modifications of this licence on my code
(for example, at http://speleotrove.com/rexx/Rexx_code.html and
http://speleotrove.com/tollos/download.html).
One version claims copyright of mine (and parts also copyright IBM), and
the other just mine. I am not claiming copyright on the text of the
licence, however. Indeed -- just like the ICU licence -- the licence
*requires* that the user copy the licence text.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
Bill,
like the last time we discussed this, I fail to see the relevance of the discussion and I am also afraid it detracts from the purpose of the list, and will scare off newcomers as do some other discussions. Mike has shown you the intent and provenance of the licence; as one of the materials in the distribution, one is explicitly free to deal with it - without restrictions - proveded that, etc. This, below, is the latest version I could find; there are already small differences with our included version. The addition of 'and others' (line 3) indicates already that the software is being the subject discussed and not the licence. If the licence were being discussed, the 'others' can be MIT; this would indicate that in addition to the software, IBM does not claim exclusive rights to it. Even if this were so, we are in compliance, because we include this whole text (of the IBM Legal provided copy, related to the NetRexx materials officially conveyed to RexxLA) in the distribution and quote it in supporting documentation as required. The licence header mentions the licence, it has no identity relationship to the licence. It would be illegal to attribute work that is not IBM's, to IBM as a copyright holder. This means we must change the header for work produced by others under this licence to state the correct copyright. The file containing the licence, even if printed on paper, is, and can only be construed as, a copy of 'associated documentation files' (as it is not the Software), in which we, per explicit permission, are free to deal in as long as we include it. The legal essence of the licence is the part in ALL CAPS, which states, in essence, that the notice must be included because we, the copyright holders (which includes IBM and all persons who modified the source code - and if you wish, the licence text), do not wish to be sued for warranties or infringement of any kind. It is a protective licence, protective of the freedom of dealing in the source code and of the right not to be sued for any reason for intellectual property that has been given to the community. I do not dispute your right to have a different opinion on this, and I thank you for making it clear. At the same time, I conclude that it has made abundantly clear and will not lead to any change in policies. best regards, Rene Jansen. from: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE Copyright (c) 1995-2012 International Business Machines Corporation and others All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, provided that the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in all copies of the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR HOLDERS INCLUDED IN THIS NOTICE BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY SPECIAL INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. Except as contained in this notice, the name of a copyright holder shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization of the copyright holder. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All trademarks and registered trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 2012-11-26 23:13, Bill Fenlason wrote: > If the ICU license is printed on a piece of paper, on its own it is a > copywritten document. The copyright is claimed by IBM. Weather on not > the copyright is valid is a separate matter. > > The point is that a copyright has nothing to do with the meaning of > the words in the document. That is why a valid copyright can be > claimed on gibberish. A crossword puzzle without clues can have a > copyright. > > I could write a piece of code and distribute it under the ICU as > long as I included a verbatim copy of the ICU. IBM would have no claim > on my work, but they are claiming copyright of the text in the ICU. > > On 11/26/2012 3:27 PM, Mike Cowlishaw wrote: > >>> I think IBM not only permits others to use the wording of this >>> license, but encourages its use as a model of openness, simplicity >>> and clarity. Perhaps someone with contacts at IBM could get an >>> opinion on this issue. >>> >>> That was/is my understanding after several discussions with IBM >>> lawyers on this and similar issues. In particular, all writings are >>> copyright their original authors, and the ICU licence has very little >>> (if any) original IBM text in it; if I remember correctly it is based >>> on the MIT licence with multiple modifications and tweaks over many >>> years. >>> >>> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License [1] for some >>> background. I do not believe IBM (or, for that matter, any one >>> individual or company) could claim copyright on the text of the ICU >>> licence. In any case there would be no point in making such a claim. > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
++1!
Thomas. PS: By the way, Rene, and all, when *I* shall *decide* to *publish* *** all of my source*** We shall need for Rexx2Nrx, RexxForm, etc,etc on: www.kenai.org/NetRexx/thsitc/xxxx/yyyy *who does have the copyrights* ??? *I*, *RexxLA*, www.netrexx.org, *IBM*, *or* *I* myself ??? I *can* (and, most probably will) *publish all of my source *under this* *Identity*, but: As it all has been *not* developed by IBM, but by me, *I want to be* ***sure*** about those, this, my Copyrights ((c) [hidden email]) before I shall and will *proceed to do so*! On the other hand, *as I'm now* 66 years old, and quite sick, as well, at this minute, it might be *simply the right time* to forget of beeing able to get *Money out of that*.... Didn't succeed in this, now, for seven years ... Hence: *So what* ?? Maybe, better, pushing it all to *open source*! But, as *Oracle* is *competing* to IBM, quite heavily, on the market, *I* will need a *Licence* simply *preserving* *my personal CopyRights ((cc)s)* ***once, forever *** Thomas. PS: Mike Cowlishaw is an ex-IBM Fellow, and does have an hopefully good *IBM* Pension! *Me*: *not*, unfortunately (:-()) Still *trying to survive*, however, no matters what does come on to me on and in this my own life-time ;-) ================================================================== ============================================================ Am 26.11.2012 23:13, schrieb Bill Fenlason: If the ICU license is printed on a piece of paper, on its own it is a copywritten document. The copyright is claimed by IBM. Weather on not the copyright is valid is a separate matter. --
http://www.thsitc.com Austria, Europe Skype ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Yahoo ID: [hidden email] FaceBook ID: Thomas.Schneider.Wien Member of the Rexx Languge Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team (www.netrexx.org) _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)
www.thsitc.com www.db-123.com |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |