Re: [RexxLA] NetRexx Language Property rigths

[Thomas.Schneider.Wien]

Hi John, thanks for *all* your clarifications.

*I* will be now quiet *on this list* (*for a while*) ...

But i might have been helpful (hopefully) to raise this issue ar least ...

Thomas Schneider (Tom, from dark Vienna).

PS: I'm copying the folks at ibm-netRexx again, as they might *not know*
what is going on there...

Last cross-post message.

I will now continue to integrate our NetRexx Tools with David Requena
and Kermit Kiser....

... Sorry is did loose you all    (I did Never want to disturbe you...)

... *and* good luck for your projects ...

Tom.


========================================================================
John Timmons schrieb:

> Mike,
>      I think a language can be an intellectual property, at least in
> America. There can always be disputes over who owns what part, if more
> than one party is involved. If you simply include the Copyright
> statement, or (C), in your code, you make a strong case for
> ownership. But it is not definitive. In your case I assume, Rexx et
> al, was developed using IBM's physical equipment, during your IBM
> working hours, even if you worked on your own time as well. Then IBM
> can lay claim to at least part of it. It's pretty standard that
> American corporations make you sign a waiver stating that whatever you
> invent, design, engineer, or otherwise come up with, whether physical
> or intangible, it belongs to them. However, everything is negotiable,
> if it's agreed to be in the best interest of both parties. Just to be
> safe, I have always included a Copyright statement in every
> substantial piece of code I have ever written. Then if need be, I can
> go back and dispute it. I might not win, but I can dispute it.
>  
>      "Language" as intellectual property is closely related to songs,
> in the same manner. I am a songwriter as well as a programmer, and
> there is no question regarding songs...you always Copyright and
> register a song with the Library of Congress. The date given in your
> copyright statement can be very important as well. I see no reason to
> treat any intellectual property any differently under copyright law.
>  
> John T. (C) 2010. All Rights Reserved.
>  
>      
> > From: [hidden email]
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:15:44 +0000
> > Subject: Re: [RexxLA] NetRexx Language Property rigths
> >
> > > PS: Mike, please let us all know when we do have to change
> > > your mail address from uk.ibm.com to speleotrove.com (which is,
> > > as always from your shop) excellent
> >
> > It works now; you can change to it whenever you like.
> >
> > > PPS: I also would like to know who has the intellectual
> > > PROPERTY rights on NetRexx as a language.
> >
> > It's not clear that a 'language' is an intellectual property,
> because it is
> > intangible.
> >
> > The NetRexx compiler code is exclusively owned by IBM, until
> transferred to
> > RexxLA. I have no rights in that whatsoever.
> >
> > The NetRexx documentation (in particular NetRexx2.pdf) is copyright
> me and
> > (partly) IBM, as shown on page 2, and Prentice Hall also have
> non-exclusive
> > rights to use the text that was in the book ("NetRexx 1"). I assume
> RexxLA
> > will get copyright rights on the documentation too, or permission to
> use it,
> > although I have not seen the paperwork yet.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> > http://rice.safedataisp.net/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rexxla-members mailing list -- mailto:[hidden email]
> http://rice.safedataisp.net/mailman/listinfo/rexxla-members
>