Re: PDF of The NetRexx Tutorial by PierantonioMarchesini

[christel.u.w.pachl christel.u.w.pachl]

I have seen Copyright 1998,2005 or such.
you ca extent copyright and tell that you have done something to the object in question

Walter

---- Bruce Skelly <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> Hi,
>
> I've been following this conversation, and I'm not a lawyer.  I did work at a company, where I did undergo training on maintaining copyright information.
>
> Copyright gives legal protection for a given period of time.  Updating a copyright date, just to make something "look up to date", is extending that protection in a fraudulent manner.
>
> I'm all for accurate maintenance of copyright dates.  It should never be done just because it appears better.
>
> Bruce
> On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:50 AM, René Jansen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>> Otherwise anybody will *think* that *NetRexx* is a *dead language* :-(
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> the only thing *I* would do*  is to replace the Date (1998!!!) with curtosey
> >>> of the author to a more newer one....
> >>
> >> Ancient copyrights are an IBM tradition. I remember complaining
> >
> >
> > I think Thomas and Fernando are absolutely right that we must keep dates current, especially if they are in large font like the '1998' in Pierantonio's document. It is not only the date however that needs revision, I am also concerned with the large number of links that are stale and some of the content - and the layout could use some modernizing.
> >
> > Referring back to an earlier remark by KP, we need to find a way to maintain this document. First, of course we need permission from Pierantonio, whom, by the way, I am addressing on a first name base although we never met. So if Mr Marchesini gives us his blessing, we can work on the content.
> >
> > For this I have thought out the following procedure. I have put the website in a subversion repository, and I can give access to that to a small number of people that want to help. This way you can checkout the website to local storage, do work, see the results on a local server, then check in your changes. I can then review these and check out to the location from which the website runs. I do prefer this method over most content systems, though I am not ruling out that we will adopt one in the future - which needs to be JVM based and run NetRexx extensions.
> >
> > So anyone who wants to help out with this, send me an email and I will send instructions.
> >
> > best regards,
> >
> > René.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Walter Pachl
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I have seen Copyright 1998,2005 or such.

Exactly. Other more obscure utils remained with the original copyright
date unmodified.

> you ca extent copyright and tell that you have done something to the object in question
> Walter

That´s what Microsoft apparently does. You run Wordpad.exe on WinXP
SP3, and it reads "Version 5.1 (Build 2600, XP SP3) (c) 2007".

I never saw IBM do that (change build number of utils on service
packs, and update its (c) date).

Plus, notice how Microsoft doesn´t say "(c) 1995,2007 Microsoft corp."
Which was what struck me as odd with OS/2.

To my mind the latter reads "you are using a really really old
program, updated a lot..."

FC

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]