ibm-netrexx

RC1 License file

Classic

List

Threaded

49 messages Options

123

billfen

RC1 License file

Rene,

I would like to understand why the License file included in the RC1 jars
was used. It is clearly in violation of the ICU 1.8.1 License as published
here:
http://icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html

The published version specifically references the copyright of "IBM and
others", and the version in the jars omits those words. The license
requires that the IBM copyright must be included in all distributions.

I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that RexxLA can legally remove the
IBM copyright from the ICU 1.8.1 license or from NetRexx. I recommend that
the published license be used instead of an altered version which removes
the IBM copyright.

IBM was very kind to release the source to RexxLA, and it seems to me that
messing with the license like that is just asking for trouble.

I suggest that before the official release you (as RexxLA president) either
get a formal OK from IBM legal approving distribution using the altered
license or use the full published license.

Bill

PS. I will be including the full ICU license with the eclipse plugin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

rvjansen

Re: RC1 License file

Bill,

I think we have a misunderstanding here. The LICENSE file is not the copyright message. The copyright is included in every source file that had IBM copyright attached to it. It is this one:

/* IBM Materials Licensed under International Components for Unicode Licence version 1.8.1 (ICU Licence) - Property of IBM */
/* IBM NetRexx */
/* Copyright (c) 1995-2009 IBM Corp.

That is the complete content of the file supplied to me by IBM legal, verbatim. I added RexxLA copyright statements, because RexxLA is now also a copyright holder.
The LICENSE file is the one furnished by IBM, and would be OK if only from that point of view. It indicates the terms of the license, in a slightly longer format than the copyright message does.

ICU Licence 1.8.1 includes the following terms
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.

This is, like the one before, also the complete content of the file supplied to me by IBM legal.
The web page that you refer to can be seen as a copyright message for the ICU product that also states the license terms. NetRexx is not the ICU product however, but NetRexx. I am not a lawyer either, but is assume IBM legal had good reason to send it in its current form for publication.

So, in short: IBM copyright is acknowledged in every source file; the LICENSE file is what IBM legal wants to see.

And actually, they are right. It must be possible to publish other software with an ICU license - we do that for example with njPipes. It would be odd if a product that never included one line of code paid for by IBM, carried a license file that stated an IBM copyright.

I trust that we have solved this problem now.

best regards,

René Jansen.

On 10 sep. 2011, at 22:51, [hidden email] wrote:

> Rene,
>
> I would like to understand why the License file included in the RC1 jars
> was used. It is clearly in violation of the ICU 1.8.1 License as published
> here:
> http://icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/license.html
>
> The published version specifically references the copyright of "IBM and
> others", and the version in the jars omits those words. The license
> requires that the IBM copyright must be included in all distributions.
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that RexxLA can legally remove the
> IBM copyright from the ICU 1.8.1 license or from NetRexx. I recommend that
> the published license be used instead of an altered version which removes
> the IBM copyright.
>
> IBM was very kind to release the source to RexxLA, and it seems to me that
> messing with the license like that is just asking for trouble.
>
> I suggest that before the official release you (as RexxLA president) either
> get a formal OK from IBM legal approving distribution using the altered
> license or use the full published license.
>
> Bill
>
> PS. I will be including the full ICU license with the eclipse plugin.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

billfen

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by billfen

Rene,

Thank you for the clear reply, but I don't consider the problem solved.

It seems to me that the ICU wording: "provided that the above copyright
notice (s) AND THIS PERMISSION NOTICE appear in ALL COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE
..." (emphasis mine) means that the full, unaltered ICU license must be
included with each distribution. "THIS" means the ICU 1.8.1 License,
including the copyright statements.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty clear to me.

The text that says "ICU License 1.8.1 includes the following terms" is NOT
the ICU License itself! It is merely a description of the License.

To be on the safe side, I still recommend that the full ICU License
(verbatim) be used. I assume that IBM wants the actual License included
with the distribution, and was just explaining that to you. Of course I
may be wrong on that, but I suggest that you check with them to be sure.

Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

rvjansen

Re: RC1 License file

Bill,

I have read the text and I also had my thoughts, but I have to conclude that IBM UK's top IP Attorney (at the time, this particular event happened in 2009, he is since gone, I had to look up my notes but I remember his name now) and you have a different judgement about this. I am not going to renege on my promise to IBM to include the text exactly as specified. If you have any trouble with that, I suggest you contact IBM Legal yourself - although I doubt that will bring anything good, or would serve any purpose. II will gladly change the text if so instructed by IBM legal.

Also, I find this discussion mildly uninteresting. The open sourcing means that IBM is going to pay even less attention to NetRexx than it already did, and that never was a whole lot. It was a one-man effort, and Mike has seen and formally blessed the code as part of the OSSC release procedure. We are grateful to him and IBM for that.

best regards,

René Jansen.

On 11 sep. 2011, at 00:19, [hidden email] wrote:

> Rene,
>
> Thank you for the clear reply, but I don't consider the problem solved.
>
> It seems to me that the ICU wording: "provided that the above copyright
> notice (s) AND THIS PERMISSION NOTICE appear in ALL COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE
> ..." (emphasis mine) means that the full, unaltered ICU license must be
> included with each distribution. "THIS" means the ICU 1.8.1 License,
> including the copyright statements.
>
> As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but that seems pretty clear to me.
>
> The text that says "ICU License 1.8.1 includes the following terms" is NOT
> the ICU License itself! It is merely a description of the License.
>
> To be on the safe side, I still recommend that the full ICU License
> (verbatim) be used. I assume that IBM wants the actual License included
> with the distribution, and was just explaining that to you. Of course I
> may be wrong on that, but I suggest that you check with them to be sure.
>
> Bill
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

billfen

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by billfen

Rene,

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree - no hard feelings.

I still believe that the file named LICENSE in the NetRexxC and NetRexxR
jars is flawed in that it does not contain any copyright statements.

The full ICU license contains the text:

ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
others
All rights reserved.

The LICENSE file replaces that text with the phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1
includes the following terms" but does not precede it with the appropriate
copyrights or any of the above text.

Both the LICENSE file and the ICU License continue "Permission is hereby
granted ... provided that the above copyright notice(s) ...".

Because of that, the reference to the copyright notice(s) in the LICENSE
file is meaningless. The implication that the copyrights exist is clear
and the copyrights (including that of "IBM and others") must be included in
the software. For that reason, I think the LICENSE file as written is
invalid.

Possibly what happened is that IBM legal did not make it clear to RexxLA
that the copyrights must be included before the license text.

I strongly believe that distributing the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars without
a valid license and with no explicit copyright is simply wrong and a very
bad idea.

In my opinion the actual ICU License text needs to be included along with
the explicit copyright statements, and apparently we do not agree on that
point.

You dismissed the possibility that there may have been miscommunication
between RexxLA and IBM Legal. I can do nothing about your choice to not
clarify the issue, nor should I care. If RexxLA is in error, it is not
really my problem.

And as as you point out, what's the sense of making a mountain out of a
molehill? (But perhaps it is not really a molehill.)

I am simply recommending what I believe to be the correct procedure and
hoping to prevent what I honestly think is a misstep by RexxLA. It's
perhaps inappropriate of me (not my job), and I'll say no more.

When I redistribute the the NetRexxC jar with the Eclipse plugin, I'll
include the missing License file text and copyright statements. I know
that is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to me that you don't see
it that way, and that RexxLA is allowing the jars to go out with a possibly
invalid license (IMHO) and no explicit copyrights.

But as I said, we can simply agree to disagree.

And I find it interesting that you find this discussion uninteresting. :)

Bill

PS. By the way, the new name of "org.netrexx.process" instead of
"COM.ibm.netrexx.process" works with no problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

David Requena

Re: RC1 License file

Bill,

If I understood correctly what René stated in previous email, the included license file is a verbatim copy of what IBM directly delivered to RexxLA.

Certainly replacing the supplied text with other gotten from the website of a separate product doesn't seem to be the right idea.

In other words: if both International Components for Unicode and NetRexx are IBM products, open sourced under similar but slightly different terms, why should RexxLA unilaterally decide to apply the literal terms of the former to the latter?

I don't see why the text at that web site should be given precedence over the one IBM handed over to RexxLA, however badly written.

Regards,

-
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, 11 Sep 2011 06:34:43
To: <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] RC1 License file

Rene,

Well, we can certainly agree to disagree - no hard feelings.

I still believe that the file named LICENSE in the NetRexxC and NetRexxR
jars is flawed in that it does not contain any copyright statements.

The full ICU license contains the text:

ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
others
All rights reserved.

The LICENSE file replaces that text with the phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1
includes the following terms" but does not precede it with the appropriate
copyrights or any of the above text.

Both the LICENSE file and the ICU License continue "Permission is hereby
granted ... provided that the above copyright notice(s) ...".

Because of that, the reference to the copyright notice(s) in the LICENSE
file is meaningless. The implication that the copyrights exist is clear
and the copyrights (including that of "IBM and others") must be included in
the software. For that reason, I think the LICENSE file as written is
invalid.

Possibly what happened is that IBM legal did not make it clear to RexxLA
that the copyrights must be included before the license text.

I strongly believe that distributing the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars without
a valid license and with no explicit copyright is simply wrong and a very
bad idea.

In my opinion the actual ICU License text needs to be included along with
the explicit copyright statements, and apparently we do not agree on that
point.

You dismissed the possibility that there may have been miscommunication
between RexxLA and IBM Legal. I can do nothing about your choice to not
clarify the issue, nor should I care. If RexxLA is in error, it is not
really my problem.

And as as you point out, what's the sense of making a mountain out of a
molehill? (But perhaps it is not really a molehill.)

I am simply recommending what I believe to be the correct procedure and
hoping to prevent what I honestly think is a misstep by RexxLA. It's
perhaps inappropriate of me (not my job), and I'll say no more.

When I redistribute the the NetRexxC jar with the Eclipse plugin, I'll
include the missing License file text and copyright statements. I know
that is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to me that you don't see
it that way, and that RexxLA is allowing the jars to go out with a possibly
invalid license (IMHO) and no explicit copyrights.

But as I said, we can simply agree to disagree.

And I find it interesting that you find this discussion uninteresting. :)

Bill

PS. By the way, the new name of "org.netrexx.process" instead of
"COM.ibm.netrexx.process" works with no problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

_______________________________________________
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/

Aviatrexx

Re: RC1 License file

As far as potential liability is concerned, RexxLA is in a far better
position by explicitly following the instructions of the donor and
original license/copyright holder, than to make any unilateral changes
whatsoever. Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on
IBM, not us. (They have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)

To do otherwise risks repercussions from both IBM and outside parties.
(This is something Bill should consider before modifying the
NetRexxC jar file he distributes.)

IANAL either, but if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights
and references the proper licenses, I don't think it's necessary (or
even common practice) to include the full text of all the applicable
licenses and their own copyrights. If that were required, many FOSS
packages would comprise more bytes of legal prose than executable code.

-Chip-

On 9/11/11 11:10 David Requena said:

> Bill,
>
> If I understood correctly what René stated in previous email, the included license file is a verbatim copy of what IBM directly delivered to RexxLA.
>
> Certainly replacing the supplied text with other gotten from the website of a separate product doesn't seem to be the right idea.
>
> In other words: if both International Components for Unicode and NetRexx are IBM products, open sourced under similar but slightly different terms, why should RexxLA unilaterally decide to apply the literal terms of the former to the latter?
>
> I don't see why the text at that web site should be given precedence over the one IBM handed over to RexxLA, however badly written.
>
> Regards,
>
> -
> 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, 11 Sep 2011 06:34:43
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] RC1 License file
>
> Rene,
>
> Well, we can certainly agree to disagree - no hard feelings.
>
> I still believe that the file named LICENSE in the NetRexxC and NetRexxR
> jars is flawed in that it does not contain any copyright statements.
>
> The full ICU license contains the text:
>
> ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
> COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
> Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
> others
> All rights reserved.
>
> The LICENSE file replaces that text with the phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1
> includes the following terms" but does not precede it with the appropriate
> copyrights or any of the above text.
>
> Both the LICENSE file and the ICU License continue "Permission is hereby
> granted ... provided that the above copyright notice(s) ...".
>
> Because of that, the reference to the copyright notice(s) in the LICENSE
> file is meaningless. The implication that the copyrights exist is clear
> and the copyrights (including that of "IBM and others") must be included in
> the software. For that reason, I think the LICENSE file as written is
> invalid.
>
> Possibly what happened is that IBM legal did not make it clear to RexxLA
> that the copyrights must be included before the license text.
>
> I strongly believe that distributing the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars without
> a valid license and with no explicit copyright is simply wrong and a very
> bad idea.
>
> In my opinion the actual ICU License text needs to be included along with
> the explicit copyright statements, and apparently we do not agree on that
> point.
>
> You dismissed the possibility that there may have been miscommunication
> between RexxLA and IBM Legal. I can do nothing about your choice to not
> clarify the issue, nor should I care. If RexxLA is in error, it is not
> really my problem.
>
> And as as you point out, what's the sense of making a mountain out of a
> molehill? (But perhaps it is not really a molehill.)
>
> I am simply recommending what I believe to be the correct procedure and
> hoping to prevent what I honestly think is a misstep by RexxLA. It's
> perhaps inappropriate of me (not my job), and I'll say no more.
>
> When I redistribute the the NetRexxC jar with the Eclipse plugin, I'll
> include the missing License file text and copyright statements. I know
> that is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to me that you don't see
> it that way, and that RexxLA is allowing the jars to go out with a possibly
> invalid license (IMHO) and no explicit copyrights.
>
> But as I said, we can simply agree to disagree.
>
> And I find it interesting that you find this discussion uninteresting. :)
>
> Bill
>
> PS. By the way, the new name of "org.netrexx.process" instead of
> "COM.ibm.netrexx.process" works with no problems.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft®
> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

rickmcguire

Re: RC1 License file

I do have a fair bit of experience with this on working on Apache
projects, particularly with Apache Geronimo. Geronimo is a javaee web
server that rebundles an enormous number of open source projects, not
all of which are licensed using the Apache license. Under the Apache
rules, the LICENSE file in the distribution contains the Apache
license (AKA ASL2) followed by any other licenses that apply to
artifacts that are part of the distribution. Each license also
indicates the artifacts of the distribution that are covered by the
particular license. In addition, there is a separate NOTICES file
that contains additional NOTICES that might be required. For example,
in the case of dual-licensed artifacts, the NOTICES file will indicate
which terms you are choosing to deliver the artifacts under.

Also, many projects have one LICENSE/NOTICES pair for the source
distributions and a second for the binary distributions to cover the
case where third-party source code has been included in the project
sources. In the source LICENSE file, the source files that contain
the third-party code are explicitly identified.

Rick

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As far as potential liability is concerned, RexxLA is in a far better
> position by explicitly following the instructions of the donor and original
> license/copyright holder, than to make any unilateral changes whatsoever.
> Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on IBM, not us. (They
> have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)
>
> To do otherwise risks repercussions from both IBM and outside parties.
> (This is something Bill should consider before modifying the NetRexxC jar
> file he distributes.)
>
> IANAL either, but if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights and
> references the proper licenses, I don't think it's necessary (or even common
> practice) to include the full text of all the applicable licenses and their
> own copyrights. If that were required, many FOSS packages would comprise
> more bytes of legal prose than executable code.
>
> -Chip-
>
> On 9/11/11 11:10 David Requena said:
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> If I understood correctly what René stated in previous email, the included
>> license file is a verbatim copy of what IBM directly delivered to RexxLA.
>>
>> Certainly replacing the supplied text with other gotten from the website
>> of a separate product doesn't seem to be the right idea.
>>
>> In other words: if both International Components for Unicode and NetRexx
>> are IBM products, open sourced under similar but slightly different terms,
>> why should RexxLA unilaterally decide to apply the literal terms of the
>> former to the latter?
>>
>> I don't see why the text at that web site should be given precedence over
>> the one IBM handed over to RexxLA, however badly written.
>> Regards,
>>
>> -
>> 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, 11 Sep 2011 06:34:43 To: <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] RC1 License file
>>
>> Rene,
>>
>> Well, we can certainly agree to disagree - no hard feelings.
>>
>> I still believe that the file named LICENSE in the NetRexxC and NetRexxR
>> jars is flawed in that it does not contain any copyright statements.
>> The full ICU license contains the text:
>>
>> ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
>> COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
>> Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
>> others
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> The LICENSE file replaces that text with the phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1
>> includes the following terms" but does not precede it with the appropriate
>> copyrights or any of the above text.
>>
>> Both the LICENSE file and the ICU License continue "Permission is hereby
>> granted ... provided that the above copyright notice(s) ...".
>>
>> Because of that, the reference to the copyright notice(s) in the LICENSE
>> file is meaningless. The implication that the copyrights exist is clear
>> and the copyrights (including that of "IBM and others") must be included
>> in
>> the software. For that reason, I think the LICENSE file as written is
>> invalid.
>> Possibly what happened is that IBM legal did not make it clear to RexxLA
>> that the copyrights must be included before the license text.
>>
>> I strongly believe that distributing the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars
>> without
>> a valid license and with no explicit copyright is simply wrong and a very
>> bad idea.
>>
>> In my opinion the actual ICU License text needs to be included along with
>> the explicit copyright statements, and apparently we do not agree on that
>> point.
>>
>> You dismissed the possibility that there may have been miscommunication
>> between RexxLA and IBM Legal. I can do nothing about your choice to not
>> clarify the issue, nor should I care. If RexxLA is in error, it is not
>> really my problem.
>>
>> And as as you point out, what's the sense of making a mountain out of a
>> molehill? (But perhaps it is not really a molehill.)
>>
>> I am simply recommending what I believe to be the correct procedure and
>> hoping to prevent what I honestly think is a misstep by RexxLA. It's
>> perhaps inappropriate of me (not my job), and I'll say no more.
>> When I redistribute the the NetRexxC jar with the Eclipse plugin, I'll
>> include the missing License file text and copyright statements. I know
>> that is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to me that you don't
>> see
>> it that way, and that RexxLA is allowing the jars to go out with a
>> possibly
>> invalid license (IMHO) and no explicit copyrights.
>> But as I said, we can simply agree to disagree.
>>
>> And I find it interesting that you find this discussion uninteresting. :)
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> PS. By the way, the new name of "org.netrexx.process" instead of
>> "COM.ibm.netrexx.process" works with no problems.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on
>> Microsoft®
>> Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

rickmcguire

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by Aviatrexx

Here's an example of the Geronimo LICENSE and NOTICES file. This is
probably an extreme case, but you can see how they've handled things.

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/LICENSE
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/trunk/NOTICE

Rick

On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

alansam

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by Aviatrexx

Beware; here be dragons!

On 11 September 2011 07:04, Chip Davis <[hidden email]> wrote:

Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on IBM, not us. (They have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)

That and $1.50 won't buy you a cup of coffee in the halls of justice. Remember: "Ignorantia juris non excusat" [ignorance of the law does not excuse].

--
Can't tweet, won't tweet!

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Alan

--
Needs more cowbell.

Aviatrexx

Re: RC1 License file

On 9/11/11 15:56 Alan Sampson said:

> Beware; here be dragons!
>
> On 11 September 2011 07:04, Chip Davis <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on IBM, not
> us. (They have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)
>
> That and $1.50 won't buy you a cup of coffee in the halls of justice.
> Remember: "/Ignorantia juris non excusat/" [ignorance of the law does
> not excuse].

Perhaps. But as with all things in Life, it is a matter of managing
risks. Unilateral modification of legal documents, regardless how
well-intentioned or -researched (without the aid of legal counsel) is
tantamount to inviting dragons, imho.

-Chip-

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

billfen

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by billfen

Chip, David,

I think it is pretty simple. If you read the text of the statement in the
jar included LICENSE file, it says:

(... do what you want ... ) "provided that the ABOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICE(S)
and this permission notice APPEAR in ALL COPIES of the Software ..."
(emphasis mine).

So I'm asking: In the LICENSE file, WHERE ARE the "above" COPYRIGHT
NOTICE(S)?

It seems to me that undoubtedly IBM intended that RexxLA include the IBM
copyright, but it has not been done.

The ICU license is one of the most simple. While I can't say that I have
read all of the dozens of OSI approved licenses at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses , over the years I have read all of the
major ones and a number of the minor ones in some detail. I find it
interesting to follow software license related topics. (But IANAL and not
an expert on the subject.)

The ICU is not an OSI approved license because it does not require source
distribution. It very simply implies "If you have this, you can do what
you want as long as you include the copyrights and require anyone you give
this to do the same".

The entire ICU license is included in the LICENSE file, with the exception
of these lines:

ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
others
All rights reserved.

Without specifying the copyright(s) and those lines above the license
statement, the license does not make sense. It implies (demands) that
there are copyright statements "above" but they are missing. The statement
says " ... and this permission notice ...", which assumes the title in the
lines above.

What I am advocating is that those lines be included in the LICENSE file,
along with the appropriate IBM and RexxLA copyright statements. I am not a
lawyer, but I believe that is what the ICU license (and IBM) require.

I searched the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars, and could not find any other
human readable license file or any copyright statements (other than an IBM
copyright on the NetRexxC.properties file for that file only). Chip said
"if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights ..." and I'm suggesting
that it does not, nor does it include or reference the complete boiler
plate ICU license or IBM copyright.

Chip, I don't agree with part of your comment about FOSS packages,
licenses and copyrights. I think you will find that essentially all
serious open source (or other) distributions include a standard verbatim
(boiler plate) License file. Every GNU, Eclipse, Apache etc. project that
I'm aware of does that. A few only reference it and point to it, but that
is the exception and not the rule. Which FOSS packages are you referring
to? I notice that the OORexx readme.pdf includes the full text of the
Common Public License Version 1.0 which is what that package is released
under.

To summarize, where are the copyright statements in the LICENSE file?

I think it would be prudent for RexxLA to determine (via further legal
advice from IBM) if the LICENSE file without the copyright statements is
valid and satisfies IBMs requirements.

Bill

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/11/2011 10:04 AM, Chip Davis wrote:
> As far as potential liability is concerned, RexxLA is in a far better
position by explicitly following the instructions of the donor and original
license/copyright holder, than to make any unilateral changes whatsoever.
Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on IBM, not us. (They
have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)
>
> To do otherwise risks repercussions from both IBM and outside parties.
(This is something Bill should consider before modifying the NetRexxC jar
file he distributes.)
>
> IANAL either, but if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights and
references the proper licenses, I don't think it's necessary (or even
common practice) to include the full text of all the applicable licenses
and their own copyrights. If that were required, many FOSS packages would
comprise more bytes of legal prose than executable code.
>
> -Chip-
>
> On 9/11/11 11:10 David Requena said:
>> Bill,
>>
>> If I understood correctly what René stated in previous email, the
included license file is a verbatim copy of what IBM directly delivered to
RexxLA.
>>
>> Certainly replacing the supplied text with other gotten from the website
of a separate product doesn't seem to be the right idea.
>>
>> In other words: if both International Components for Unicode and NetRexx
are IBM products, open sourced under similar but slightly different terms,
why should RexxLA unilaterally decide to apply the literal terms of the
former to the latter?
>>
>> I don't see why the text at that web site should be given precedence
over the one IBM handed over to RexxLA, however badly written.

>> Regards,
>>
>> -
>> 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, 11 Sep 2011 06:34:43 To: <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] RC1 License file
>>
>> Rene,
>>
>> Well, we can certainly agree to disagree - no hard feelings.
>>
>> I still believe that the file named LICENSE in the NetRexxC and NetRexxR
>> jars is flawed in that it does not contain any copyright statements.
>> The full ICU license contains the text:
>>
>> ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
>> COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
>> Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
>> others
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> The LICENSE file replaces that text with the phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1
>> includes the following terms" but does not precede it with the

appropriate
>> copyrights or any of the above text.
>>
>> Both the LICENSE file and the ICU License continue "Permission is hereby
>> granted ... provided that the above copyright notice(s) ...".
>>
>> Because of that, the reference to the copyright notice(s) in the LICENSE
>> file is meaningless. The implication that the copyrights exist is clear
>> and the copyrights (including that of "IBM and others") must be included
in
>> the software. For that reason, I think the LICENSE file as written is
>> invalid.
>> Possibly what happened is that IBM legal did not make it clear to RexxLA
>> that the copyrights must be included before the license text.
>>
>> I strongly believe that distributing the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars
without

>> a valid license and with no explicit copyright is simply wrong and a very
>> bad idea.
>>
>> In my opinion the actual ICU License text needs to be included along with
>> the explicit copyright statements, and apparently we do not agree on that
>> point.
>>
>> You dismissed the possibility that there may have been miscommunication
>> between RexxLA and IBM Legal. I can do nothing about your choice to not
>> clarify the issue, nor should I care. If RexxLA is in error, it is not
>> really my problem.
>>
>> And as as you point out, what's the sense of making a mountain out of a
>> molehill? (But perhaps it is not really a molehill.)
>>
>> I am simply recommending what I believe to be the correct procedure and
>> hoping to prevent what I honestly think is a misstep by RexxLA. It's
>> perhaps inappropriate of me (not my job), and I'll say no more.
>> When I redistribute the the NetRexxC jar with the Eclipse plugin, I'll
>> include the missing License file text and copyright statements. I know
>> that is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to me that you don't

see
>> it that way, and that RexxLA is allowing the jars to go out with a
possibly
>> invalid license (IMHO) and no explicit copyrights.
>> But as I said, we can simply agree to disagree.
>>
>> And I find it interesting that you find this discussion uninteresting. :)
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> PS. By the way, the new name of "org.netrexx.process" instead of
>> "COM.ibm.netrexx.process" works with no problems.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

David Requena

Re: RC1 License file

Bill,

I'd agree with you if --and only if-- the text handed by IBM together with the sources was the very same that the text as the one you can read at the license section of the ICU website. Otherwise even if the former had grave spelling errors, or whatever inconsistency, that one should be included verbatim.

Not that I've seen the actual materials IBM did deliver.

> The ICU is not an OSI approved license because it does not require source
distribution.

This one is clearly incorrect. Many OSI approved licenses don't require source distribution. See MIT or BSD2 and BSD3.

-
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, 11 Sep 2011 16:47:28
To: <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: [hidden email], IBM Netrexx <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] RC1 License file

Chip, David,

I think it is pretty simple. If you read the text of the statement in the
jar included LICENSE file, it says:

(... do what you want ... ) "provided that the ABOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICE(S)
and this permission notice APPEAR in ALL COPIES of the Software ..."
(emphasis mine).

So I'm asking: In the LICENSE file, WHERE ARE the "above" COPYRIGHT
NOTICE(S)?

It seems to me that undoubtedly IBM intended that RexxLA include the IBM
copyright, but it has not been done.

The ICU license is one of the most simple. While I can't say that I have
read all of the dozens of OSI approved licenses at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses , over the years I have read all of the
major ones and a number of the minor ones in some detail. I find it
interesting to follow software license related topics. (But IANAL and not
an expert on the subject.)

The ICU is not an OSI approved license because it does not require source
distribution. It very simply implies "If you have this, you can do what
you want as long as you include the copyrights and require anyone you give
this to do the same".

The entire ICU license is included in the LICENSE file, with the exception
of these lines:

ICU License - ICU 1.8.1 and later
COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION NOTICE
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 International Business Machines Corporation and
others
All rights reserved.

Without specifying the copyright(s) and those lines above the license
statement, the license does not make sense. It implies (demands) that
there are copyright statements "above" but they are missing. The statement
says " ... and this permission notice ...", which assumes the title in the
lines above.

What I am advocating is that those lines be included in the LICENSE file,
along with the appropriate IBM and RexxLA copyright statements. I am not a
lawyer, but I believe that is what the ICU license (and IBM) require.

I searched the NetRexxC and NetRexxR jars, and could not find any other
human readable license file or any copyright statements (other than an IBM
copyright on the NetRexxC.properties file for that file only). Chip said
"if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights ..." and I'm suggesting
that it does not, nor does it include or reference the complete boiler
plate ICU license or IBM copyright.

Chip, I don't agree with part of your comment about FOSS packages,
licenses and copyrights. I think you will find that essentially all
serious open source (or other) distributions include a standard verbatim
(boiler plate) License file. Every GNU, Eclipse, Apache etc. project that
I'm aware of does that. A few only reference it and point to it, but that
is the exception and not the rule. Which FOSS packages are you referring
to? I notice that the OORexx readme.pdf includes the full text of the
Common Public License Version 1.0 which is what that package is released
under.

To summarize, where are the copyright statements in the LICENSE file?

I think it would be prudent for RexxLA to determine (via further legal
advice from IBM) if the LICENSE file without the copyright statements is
valid and satisfies IBMs requirements.

Bill

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 9/11/2011 10:04 AM, Chip Davis wrote:
> As far as potential liability is concerned, RexxLA is in a far better
position by explicitly following the instructions of the donor and original
license/copyright holder, than to make any unilateral changes whatsoever.
Should a problem arise, that puts the onus right back on IBM, not us. (They
have lawyers, we have plausible deniability.)
>
> To do otherwise risks repercussions from both IBM and outside parties.
(This is something Bill should consider before modifying the NetRexxC jar
file he distributes.)
>
> IANAL either, but if the NetRexx code contains the proper copyrights and
references the proper licenses, I don't think it's necessary (or even
common practice) to include the full text of all the applicable licenses
and their own copyrights. If that were required, many FOSS packages would
comprise more bytes of legal prose than executable code.
>
> -Chip-
>
> On 9/11/11 11:10 David Requena said:
>> Bill,
>>
>> If I understood correctly what René stated in previous email, the
included license file is a verbatim copy of what IBM directly delivered to
RexxLA.
>>
>> Certainly replacing the supplied text with other gotten from the website
of a separate product doesn't seem to be the right idea.
>>
>> In other words: if both International Components for Unicode and NetRexx
are IBM products, open sourced under similar but slightly different terms,
why should RexxLA unilaterally decide to apply the literal terms of the
former to the latter?
>>
>> I don't see why the text at that web site should be given precedence
over the one IBM handed over to RexxLA, however badly written.

billfen

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by billfen

David,

I have verified that the text in the ICU 1.8.1 license is the same as that
contained within the LICENSE file (word for word and letter for letter
exactly, including case), except that the LICENSE file does not contain the
4 initial lines mentioned earlier, or a final line stating:

"All trademarks and registered trademarks mentioned herein are the property
of their respective owners."

Other than the initial phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1 includes the following
terms", the text in the LICENSE file is exactly contained within the text
of the ICU license.

In other words, if you were writing an email describing the ICU and typed:
"ICU Licence 1.8.1 includes the following terms" and followed it by a cut
and paste from the middle of the ICU license, you would get exactly what
the LICENSE file contains. As Wikipedia points out, in British English
"license" is spelled "licence". That is one reason I suggested there may
have been a miscommunication between IBM Legal (Britain) and RexxLA, and
perhaps it should be investigated.

Yes, you are right that the reason the ICU is not OSI approved is not
because it is not an open source license. That was a careless guess on my
part - but as I said, I'm not an expert.

Actually, if you read the MIT and ICU licenses side by side, they appear to
be quite similar both in wording and intent.

A little digging at the OSI and other sites leads me to believe that the
ICU may have been judged to be too similar to existing licenses, perhaps
the MIT one, to be formally approved as a separate OSI license. Or perhaps
no one pursued the approval process. see:
http://olex.openlogic.com/licenses/icu-mit-license

OSI grew weary of license proliferation - see:
http://www.opensource.org/proliferation

Bill

PS - I was sleeping this morning and missed 06:07:08 09/10/11, aw...

---------------------------------------------------------------
On 9/11/2011 5:16 PM, David Requena wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I'd agree with you if --and only if-- the text handed by IBM together
with the sources was the very same that the text as the one you can read at
the license section of the ICU website. Otherwise even if the former had
grave spelling errors, or whatever inconsistency, that one should be
included verbatim.
>
> Not that I've seen the actual materials IBM did deliver.
>
>> The ICU is not an OSI approved license because it does not require source
> distribution.
>
> This one is clearly incorrect. Many OSI approved licenses don't require
source distribution. See MIT or BSD2 and BSD3.
>
> -
> 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.: 1520/3888 - Release Date: 09/10/11

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

rvjansen

Re: RC1 License file

Bill,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r76 | rvjansen | 2009-07-31 18:37:56 +0200 (vr, 31 jul 2009) | 2 lines
Changed paths:
A /netrexx/lang/icu-copyright-long.txt

added longer copyright explanations suggested by IBM legal

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r75 | rvjansen | 2009-07-31 18:36:22 +0200 (vr, 31 jul 2009) | 2 lines
Changed paths:
A /netrexx/lang/icu-copyright.txt

added copyright statement suggested by IBM legal

This is how it came to be. The file icu-copyright-long.txt is what became LICENSE. It has the same content. I have only left out the name of the IBM IP Attorney that sent those files to me.

I will inquire with IBM if this is what its legal department wants. I have some experience in handling with IBM and I am not going to hold up a release until we have our answer (this might never come, as there is no-one with a budget for answering these questions about NetRexx anymore)- but will verify this with the ARB and the release manager to have an anonymous decision. As you might know, IBM's copyright assertion has been added to every source file and is in the startup messages for the translator - this even is expanded in the impending release by having the translator issue this message even if there is no translation going on. My view here is that this covers any wish for copyright attribution completely.

So - if we inquire with IBM one more time what the text should be, even if it is what IBM supplied and what was approved by an intensive open source process, would that take your doubts away?

best regards,

René Jansen.

On 12 sep. 2011, at 02:43, [hidden email] wrote:

> David,
>
> I have verified that the text in the ICU 1.8.1 license is the same as that
> contained within the LICENSE file (word for word and letter for letter
> exactly, including case), except that the LICENSE file does not contain the
> 4 initial lines mentioned earlier, or a final line stating:
>
> "All trademarks and registered trademarks mentioned herein are the property
> of their respective owners."
>
> Other than the initial phrase "ICU Licence 1.8.1 includes the following
> terms", the text in the LICENSE file is exactly contained within the text
> of the ICU license.
>
> In other words, if you were writing an email describing the ICU and typed:
> "ICU Licence 1.8.1 includes the following terms" and followed it by a cut
> and paste from the middle of the ICU license, you would get exactly what
> the LICENSE file contains. As Wikipedia points out, in British English
> "license" is spelled "licence". That is one reason I suggested there may
> have been a miscommunication between IBM Legal (Britain) and RexxLA, and
> perhaps it should be investigated.
>
> Yes, you are right that the reason the ICU is not OSI approved is not
> because it is not an open source license. That was a careless guess on my
> part - but as I said, I'm not an expert.
>
> Actually, if you read the MIT and ICU licenses side by side, they appear to
> be quite similar both in wording and intent.
>
> A little digging at the OSI and other sites leads me to believe that the
> ICU may have been judged to be too similar to existing licenses, perhaps
> the MIT one, to be formally approved as a separate OSI license. Or perhaps
> no one pursued the approval process. see:
> http://olex.openlogic.com/licenses/icu-mit-license
>
> OSI grew weary of license proliferation - see:
> http://www.opensource.org/proliferation
>
> Bill
>
> PS - I was sleeping this morning and missed 06:07:08 09/10/11, aw...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> On 9/11/2011 5:16 PM, David Requena wrote:
>> Bill,
>>
>> I'd agree with you if --and only if-- the text handed by IBM together
> with the sources was the very same that the text as the one you can read at
> the license section of the ICU website. Otherwise even if the former had
> grave spelling errors, or whatever inconsistency, that one should be
> included verbatim.
>>
>> Not that I've seen the actual materials IBM did deliver.
>>
>>> The ICU is not an OSI approved license because it does not require source
>> distribution.
>>
>> This one is clearly incorrect. Many OSI approved licenses don't require
> source distribution. See MIT or BSD2 and BSD3.
>>
>> -
>> 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.: 1520/3888 - Release Date: 09/10/11
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
> http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/

rvjansen

Re: RC1 License file

On 12 sep. 2011, at 12:37, René Jansen wrote:

an anonymous decision

and I wish we could make those, but unanimous would probably be better here.

René.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Aviatrexx

Re: RC1 License file

On 9/12/11 10:54 René Jansen said:
> On 12 sep. 2011, at 12:37, René Jansen wrote:
>> an anonymous decision
>
> and I wish we could make those, but /unanimous/ would probably be better
> here.

:-))

But as long as no one knows how the members of the ARB vote, it's
anonymous as far as I'm concerned. ;-)

?Dijq?

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

ThSITC

Re: RC1 License file

By the way, Rene:

WHO *are* the member's of the ARB?

It might be now the right time to *publish this* !!!

Greetings,
Thomas Schneider.
========================================================
Am 12.09.2011 14:33, schrieb Chip Davis:

> On 9/12/11 10:54 René Jansen said:
>> On 12 sep. 2011, at 12:37, René Jansen wrote:
>>> an anonymous decision
>>
>> and I wish we could make those, but /unanimous/ would probably be
>> better here.
>
> :-))
>
> But as long as no one knows how the members of the ARB vote, it's
> anonymous as far as I'm concerned. ;-)
>
> ?Dijq?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

--
Thomas Schneider (Founder of www.thsitc.com) 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

billfen

Re: RC1 License file

In reply to this post by billfen

Rene,

I'm reasonably sure that a boilerplate license file which references
non-existent copyright notices is not what IBM had in mind. Does it make
sense to you? I expect they will want the full ICU license, and not just
the middle of it.

If you specifically ask them if the partial ICU License without any IBM or
any other copyright is acceptable to them (for use in a binary or other
executable only distribution as well as in the source), and you get their
response in writing if they say yes, that would certainly cover my concerns
with regard to IBM. But I would still suggest a readable RexxLA copyright
notice in the jars somewhere to protect RexxLA interests.

If it were me, I would simply ask IBM if the standard, full ICU License
file (as available at the website), amended only to add the RexxLA
copyright, is necessary and sufficient for them in both executable only and
source distributions. If they say yes (and I assume they would), you can
generate that single License file and include and reference it everywhere.

There are two different issues here - the copyright and license for the
source files, and those for the executable jars. Since the jar
distribution is separate from the source, the license and copyright in the
jars needs to be carefully done. When you check with IBM, I suggest that
you discuss the license and copyright in executable only distributions as
well as in the source.

If RexxLA is to retain proper control of NetRexx, I think it is quite
important to be Very meticulous and careful about the copyright and
license. Don't you agree?

IBM has always been fussy (rightfully so) about copyrights - I remember
many years ago when they mandated to us programmers that the readable IBM
copyright had to occur within the first 3 lines of any dump listing (that
was in the keypunch and 1403 printer days, well before terminals and modern
debugging techniques).

Adding the copyright as human readable within an executable has always been
a requirement and common IBM practice as far as I know. The idea is that
the file is clearly copyrighted without having to be executed. Providing
an execution time message is to indicate that the file contains a
copyright. My understand is that the copyright applies primarily to the
file, not it's execution behavior (as in copy-right or right-to-copy the
physical file content), but IANAL. Having an execution time message
without an obvious, readable copyright statement is not enough, in my
opinion. You might ask IBM if their policy has changed on that point.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Eclipse plugin was updated yesterday, and the new version is easily
downloaded by Eclipse main menu: Help-> Check for Updates. New
installations via Help-> Install New Software will pick it up
automatically.

The 3.01RC1 distribution is included. The "About..." page continues to
include the copyright and license statements for both Eclipse NetRexx (the
plugin) and NetRexx itself. I added references to the NetRexx and RexxLA
web sites, and at some point will make them "clickable".

I did not modify the License file in the NetRexxC jar. Since it is
downloadable directly, that did not make sense to me, but having the
copyright on the About page (as is standard practice) did.

<plug> The new version adds keyboard shortcuts (Alt + i to interpret, etc.)
which makes it more usable, and uses the new -keepasjava option. Works
really well. (Thanks again Kermit!!) Bug fixes, a new icon (temporary
until an official icon is adopted) and NetRexx main menu option are also
included. The Java environment requirement has been relaxed back to 1.5.
The details are in the README at the sourceforge site. Additional updates
will be coming shortly. </ plug :>

Bill

-------------------------------------------------------------
On 9/12/2011 6:37 AM, René Jansen wrote:

> Bill,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r76 | rvjansen | 2009-07-31 18:37:56 +0200 (vr, 31 jul 2009) | 2 lines
> Changed paths:
> A /netrexx/lang/icu-copyright-long.txt
>
> added longer copyright explanations suggested by IBM legal
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> r75 | rvjansen | 2009-07-31 18:36:22 +0200 (vr, 31 jul 2009) | 2 lines
> Changed paths:
> A /netrexx/lang/icu-copyright.txt
>
> added copyright statement suggested by IBM legal
>
> This is how it came to be. The file icu-copyright-long.txt is what became

LICENSE. It has the same content. I have only left out the name of the IBM
IP Attorney that sent those files to me.
>
> I will inquire with IBM if this is what its legal department wants. I
have some experience in handling with IBM and I am not going to hold up a
release until we have our answer (this might never come, as there is no-one
with a budget for answering these questions about NetRexx anymore)- but
will verify this with the ARB and the release manager to have an anonymous
decision. As you might know, IBM's copyright assertion has been added to
every source file and is in the startup messages for the translator - this
even is expanded in the impending release by having the translator issue
this message even if there is no translation going on. My view here is that
this covers any wish for copyright attribution completely.
>
> So - if we inquire with IBM one more time what the text should be, even
if it is what IBM supplied and what was approved by an intensive open
source process, would that take your doubts away?
>
> best regards,
>
> René Jansen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Mike Cowlishaw

RE: RC1 License file

> IBM has always been fussy (rightfully so) about copyrights -
> I remember many years ago when they mandated to us
> programmers that the readable IBM copyright had to occur
> within the first 3 lines of any dump listing (that was in the
> keypunch and 1403 printer days, well before terminals and
> modern debugging techniques).

This is one of the battles I fought and won many years (decades) ago [along with
commentary in mixed case]. It is no longer required (especially since most
binaries not generated by IBM compilers -- such as Java .class files -- simply
don't have the option to do this).

> Adding the copyright as human readable within an executable
> has always been a requirement and common IBM practice as far
> as I know.

Just not true anymore. I tended to do it by default (put in an unused static
constant with a spurious use to stop compiler errors, typically) -- but if doing
it was impossible without errors then I left it out.

> The idea is that the file is clearly copyrighted
> without having to be executed. Providing an execution time
> message is to indicate that the file contains a copyright.
> My understand is that the copyright applies primarily to the
> file, not it's execution behavior (as in copy-right or
> right-to-copy the physical file content), but IANAL. Having
> an execution time message without an obvious, readable
> copyright statement is not enough, in my opinion.

The USA has been a signatory to the Berne Convention for 22 years .. all that
nonsense has been irrelevant since then. All works are copyright whether stated
or not.

> You might ask IBM if their policy has changed on that point.

I think that would be wasting their time. And RexxLA's.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

123