Open source license
Locked
12
12
 
|
Is there a consensus on what type of open source license is appropriate for our use?
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
The Open Source Initiative, OSI, says ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php ) : "(NOTE: This license has been superseded by the Eclipse Public License)" which is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php . OSI also lists, among many other "Open Source Licenses which have successfully gone through the approval process and comply with the Open Source Definition", "IBM Public License Version 1.0." ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php ). Maybe IBM will require this. I have had no experience with any of these. [For what little it might be worth, I generally use GPLv3 (also on OSI's list at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html ) for my work.] On 10/14/2010 9:09 AM, George Hovey wrote: Is there a consensus on what type of open source license is appropriate for our use? _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
IBM owns the code and sets the license. We, "consensus" or not, have no say, except to not use the code if we do not want to live with the license. That said, they have several more or less "obvious" choices. OORexx is distributed by RexxLA under "Common Public License v1.0" ( http://www.oorexx.org/license.html ). The Open Source Initiative, OSI, says ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl1.0.php ) : "(NOTE: This license has been superseded by the Eclipse Public License)" which is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/eclipse-1.0.php . OSI also lists, among many other "Open Source Licenses which have successfully gone through the approval process and comply with the Open Source Definition", "IBM Public License Version 1.0." ( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php ). Maybe IBM will require this. I have had no experience with any of these. [For what little it might be worth, I generally use GPLv3 (also on OSI's list at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html ) for my work.] On 10/14/2010 9:09 AM, George Hovey wrote: Is there a consensus on what type of open source license is appropriate for our use? _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to negotiation.
- Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena -----Original Message----- From: George Hovey <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:09:21 To: <[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: [Ibm-netrexx] Open source license _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jeff Hennick
I should have been more specific - I have some small programs I would like to contribute and wonder how they should be handled.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Jeff Hennick <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
I should have been more specific - I have some small
programs I would like to contribute and wonder how they should be
handled.
It's your call entirely. For small things that you just want to make available, the 'MIT license' is one of the shortest and simplest. It is roughly "use this however you want, but don't sue me if anything goes wrong". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License The ICU license is another good one (roughly the MIT
license with some extra caveats).
Mike
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote:
> That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to negotiation. > > - > Saludos / Kind regards, > David Requena What negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Cowlishaw
There appears to be some 'open source' activity here. Are we closer to reality or what?
bobh On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Mike Cowlishaw <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
On 10/14/10 16:03 [hidden email] said:
> On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote: >> That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to > negotiation. >> >> - >> Saludos / Kind regards, >> David Requena > > What negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. Yep. That's why it's taking so long: René is stalling the NetRexx transfer to RexxLA while he convinces IBM to accept a modified open source license, which he has cunningly crafted to allow him to sell Java application suites with his proprietary NetRexx programming interface. It's a sinister plan which will result in nothing but evil for us, and René will escape with all the cash to his lair on his private island off Aruba. Bwahh-Hah-Hah-Hah... _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
I hope the island has a full cave system just for Mike! He deserves it!
On 10/14/2010 7:26 PM, Chip Davis wrote: > On 10/14/10 16:03 [hidden email] said: >> On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote: >>> That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to >> negotiation. >>> >>> - >>> Saludos / Kind regards, >>> David Requena >> >> What negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. > > Yep. > > That's why it's taking so long: René is stalling the NetRexx transfer > to RexxLA while he convinces IBM to accept a modified open source > license, which he has cunningly crafted to allow him to sell Java > application suites with his proprietary NetRexx programming interface. > > It's a sinister plan which will result in nothing but evil for us, and > René will escape with all the cash to his lair on his private island > off Aruba. > > Bwahh-Hah-Hah-Hah... > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > > Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by billfen
I always thought of that negotiation as one between IBM and RexxLA (as opposed to IBM and René). Anyway intended license is clearly non-disclosable information as this has been asked one thousand times here. never a hint back :-) --- Saludos / Kind regards. David Requena El 14/10/2010 18:03, [hidden email] escribió: On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote:That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject tonegotiation.- Saludos / Kind regards, David RequenaWhat negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
Do RexxLA members have access to the RexxLA bylaws? It is interesting that
the RexxLA web site page titled "Bylaws" is "Under Construction". One might think that after 20 years either the bylaws would be made public or would be identified as private. Strange for a non-profit, volunteer organization. Original Message: ----------------- From: David Requena [hidden email] Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:29:33 +0200 To: [hidden email], [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Open source license I always thought of that negotiation as one between IBM and RexxLA (as opposed to IBM and René). Anyway intended license is clearly non-disclosable information as this has been asked one thousand times here. never a hint back :-) --- Saludos / Kind regards. David Requena El 14/10/2010 18:03, [hidden email] escribió: > On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote: >> That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to > negotiation. >> >> - >> Saludos / Kind regards, >> David Requena > What negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web.com â What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
Bill,
I do not know on what mission you are, but this is clearly off-topic for the NetRexx list. Why don't you ask on the RexxLA list? best regards, René Jansen. On 15 okt 2010, at 16:09, [hidden email] wrote: > Do RexxLA members have access to the RexxLA bylaws? It is interesting that > the RexxLA web site page titled "Bylaws" is "Under Construction". One > might think that after 20 years either the bylaws would be made public or > would be identified as private. Strange for a non-profit, volunteer > organization. > > Original Message: > ----------------- > From: David Requena [hidden email] > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 03:29:33 +0200 > To: [hidden email], [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Open source license > > > > I always thought of that negotiation as one between IBM and RexxLA (as > opposed to IBM and René). > > Anyway intended license is clearly non-disclosable information as this > has been asked one thousand times here. never a hint back :-) > > --- > Saludos / Kind regards. > David Requena > > > El 14/10/2010 18:03, [hidden email] escribió: >> On 10/14/2010 11:32 AM, David Requena wrote: >>> That seems to be part of the non-discloseable information subject to >> negotiation. >>> >>> - >>> Saludos / Kind regards, >>> David Requena >> What negotiation? As was disclosed earlier, Rene is paid by IBM. >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? >> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ibm-netrexx mailing list >> [hidden email] >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application > hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ibm-netrexx mailing list > [hidden email] > _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
I suspect Bill asks his question here so that a broader audience can ponder it.
I have to agree with Bill that RexxLA's stance on the bylaws is strange. The fact that you have the bylaws page suggests that you have some notion of revealing them to a broader public. You seem to say, on this issue and others, "We have great things to offer; $24 in advance, non refundable, will let you find out what they are". I've never seen a justification put forth for this attitude. Lacking that, I am inclined to suspect the organization has ossified to the point that you cannot view yourselves objectively or image how others view you. Can't you see that it would be better to keep the bylaws page invisible until you are ready reveal it; as is, it causes you a loss of credibility. Is it unreasonable for people in this forum, even RexxLA members, to ask questions about RexxLA? For example, your "mission statement" says the organization is "dedicated to promoting the use and understanding of the Rexx programming language". This seems unlikely to attract potential NetRexx users, especially those from a non-Rexx background. And I don't see what relevance Rexx has to NetRexx, which is a very different animal. You (RexxLA, not you personally) have no obvious experience with NetRexx. I doubt that ooRexx people have any interest in NetRexx. We are given bland assurances that at the proper time a swarm of experts will descend on NetRexx and give it the treatment it needs. Some of these assurances (Chip's) are accompanied by sotto voce asides about the need to root out unspecified Java influences in NetRexx, though why or how this is to be accomplished is not spelled out. Is this the voice of RexxLA speaking? We have no way of knowing. On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:31 AM, René Jansen <[hidden email]> wrote: Bill, _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
If you guys want to make the NetRexx mailing list a political
discussion list rather than a technical discussion list, then count me
out. There are plenty of places you can discuss RexxLA, the answer to
the Universe, and everything. But please keep this list a NetRexx
list.
Thanks -- Mike
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
At least the topic on the answer to the universe admits no discussion. Of course it's 42 ;-) By the way this post is NetRexx related. Unlimited precision arithmetic is needed to compute that answer. Anyone knows of a NetRexx implementation of the algorithm? Hmm... also a technical post, I see... he, he... - Saludos / Kind regards, David Requena -----Original Message----- From: "Mike Cowlishaw" <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:13:22 To: 'IBM Netrexx'<[hidden email]> Reply-To: IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: [Ibm-netrexx] Open source license _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
I still think the original question is off-topic. Now that you add NetRexx to the equation it could be slightly on-topic, and I will offer you my personal views. The people from RexxLA, with the obvious exception of myself, are the nicest bunch of professional people I have ever met, and I have no problem in calling most of them my personal friends. This might be of no importance to you, but what is important, is that expert knowledge about the whole Rexx universe is concentrated in just this group of people. RexxLA has a long history and has earned the trust of IBM, enough to consider open sourcing these products through it. There is no 'stance on the bylaws'. It is just accidental that after the initial impulse - I might have asked for them myself - no-one could find the time. RexxLA organizes yearly symposia - these cost money, as do servers and bandwidth. If $2 a month is too much for an opportunity to share in this and to meet everyone who has meant something in the long history of the language, I can only say that nobody is forcing you. And I don't see what relevance Rexx has to NetRexx, which is a very different animal. About 'promoting the use and understanding' : I am not going to rattle off the whole list of similarities again because I believe I recently did this, but NetRexx has parse, trace, string abuttal and all Rexx string functions. It is invented and implemented by the father of Rexx. NetRexx is Rexx. If you think it is not Rexx I am willing to discuss this over a few beers, but I do not think it is worth the bandwidth of the mailing list. There is a large subset of people on the ooRexx lists (and the RexxLa list) shared with this list, and every symposium since the mid-nineties has had presentations on Classic Rexx, ooRexx and NetRexx. You (RexxLA, not you personally) have no obvious experience with NetRexx.RexxLA counts Mike Cowlishaw among its members. He has, obviously, quite some experience with the language. Although I am the last person who has built NetRexx recently, he will be involved in the future of the language, as will others, some of them also on this list. As you have seen, continued discussion of this type might drive him away from this list. I am certain that this is not what you want. Rexx and NetRexx, as the granddaddy of scripting languages, respectively the granddaddy of alternative languages for the JVM, are well thought out and are here to stay, as opposed to some other languages that came and went, or have different syntax and break their installed base in every major revision. I would like to compare this to z/OS, where I can still run load modules from the seventies on a current system. These are values that are intrinsic to the culture around it. What you call ossified I might call dependable. So, with this, I would like to ask you all to limit discussion to technical NetRexx issues. We are losing list members through this. The list is provided as a courtesy to the community by IBM and it might be heavily moderated or switched off. The time that I spend in trying to politely answer your queries and worries, I can not spend on open sourcing NetRexx or, for example, researching Maven to add function to it to build NetRexx or its applications. So, please, do not be offended that with this, I will stop answering questions that I deem off-topic. best regards, René Vincent Jansen. On 15 okt 2010, at 20:38, George Hovey wrote: I suspect Bill asks his question here so that a broader audience can ponder it. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Mike Cowlishaw
OK, but I only know about this list, and I didn't know it was purely for technical issues. Of course I'm interested in these, but also in broader issues of NetRexx viability. Any ideas (anyone) where these might be under discussion?
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Mike Cowlishaw <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by George Hovey-2
Since I'm apparently the instigator and bad guy in all of this, I'll say a
few words of explanation and hopefully that will be the last of it. While I understand Mike's desire to keep this a technical list, I must point out that the release of the NetRexx source is certainly a germane topic. The resolution of numerous technical issues depend on it. IBM promised to open source NetRexx two and a half years ago, and they have broken that promise. Indeed, as far as I can tell, there has been no statement of actual status and progress in the last year and a half, other than vague "All is well" comments from Rene. I'm trying to make progress in finding out why the source release is so long overdue and to find out what can be done to hasten it. IBM management and the RexxLA president have provided no detailed information. I asked about the RexxLA bylaws because we need to know exactly what kind of an organization RexxLA is. What is the truth about its relationship with IBM? Why the secrecy? At first I thought it was an independent trade group, run by non-IBM consultants, authors and others with a vested (financial) interest in Rexx. Its business model is apparently "pay dues for access to a closed discussion list administered by experts", which seems counter to its description as a not-for-profit, volunteer organization to promote Rexx. Now we discover that the RexxLA president (and "chief negotiator") is paid by IBM. The bylaws, if they exist, are nowhere to be seen. The web site identifies various RexxLA board members. It would be interesting to know which of them are also paid by IBM, and if the President of RexxLA is accountable to a board not controlled by IBM. If so, has the board been briefed in detail? Or is RexxLA simply a front organization, bought and paid for by IBM? Is all the "negotiation" discussion about NetRexx pure BS? In other words, is it all just fog between the left hand of IBM and the right? Who is really responsible? It is totally clear to me that IBM (and that part of RexxLA not controlled by IBM, if any) have not applied the appropriate resources and management to achieve the source release in a timely fashion. Why not? When will they? Whose performance plan has this item? Who is damaging IBMs reputation? Rene, you asked about my mission. Is it so hard to see and understand? IBM, keep your promise! Now! Bill PS. I know that many readers of this list think I'm a pain in the rear, but I accept that because I believe I have the moral high ground. If people don't like my squeaky wheel activism, I'm sorry, but so be it. I care more about getting the NetRexx source released than I do about popularity. I'll say no more here, but concentrate instead on other ways to apply gentle public pressure on IBM. -------------------------------------------------------------------- myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
Bylaws to HTML was: Re: RexxLA and NetRexx
|
|
In reply to this post by rvjansen
René,
If you could send me a copy of the RexxLA bylaws, I volunteer to put them into HTML format for the Association. Before it gets asked, my agenda is as a (Net)Rexx-lover, Java-indifferent-to-avoider, retiree (Eastman Kodak, not IBM) who volunteer programs for several non-profit organizations of varying degrees of charity status. Essentially all my work is licensed open source. As such I have no profit motive, axe to grind, dog in the fight, nor any programming income to spend "sight-unseen," and would very much like to have more information about RexxLA before paying from my pension. Jeff Hennick On 10/15/2010 4:13 PM, René Jansen wrote: > I still think the original question is off-topic. _______________________________________________ Ibm-netrexx mailing list [hidden email] |
«
Return to ibm-netrexx
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |