ibm-netrexx

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Thomas.Schneider.Wien

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

There has been (from Robert Hamiltons reply recent on this REXXLA-list ...)

A major MIS-UNDERSTANDING I would like to clear up IMMEDIATELY:

Rexx2Nrx (as you can see from www.Rexx2Nrx.com) is a *FREE Product*

I'm sorry that the (very old) Powepoint Presentation on my home-page
does give
you antoher impression.... Originally, I thought, I can eratch MONEY out of
Rexx2Nrx ... Wrong impression, which I did meanwhile (some 6 years ago),
correct....

Rey (::== Rexx for Java:: as Rexx2Nrx, will be also * a FREE Product *)

Sorry I do have to report that testing and document it takes so much of
(my)
time. I'm only one person, yopu know ?

And:

Rey (Rexx for Java), which is the thing I'm currently working on,
is also *a FREE Product*, and will go out, hopefully very soon,

*when*

I did COMPLETE my ** all of my tests **

with my (OWN) implementations of

EXECIO (IBM CMS / zOS compatible), and my INTERPRET implementation,
and my own (classic Rexx compatible) TRACE implementation.

All those enhancements do need a proper time of testing, sorry.

But I'm well under the way...

Thomas Schneider (vulgo Tom.)
From Dark Vienna

Tom. (ths@db-123.com)

Fernando Cassia-2

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

Free as in "Free Beer" or "Free as in Freedom"?. :) GPL license?.

FC

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There has been (from Robert Hamiltons reply recent on this REXXLA-list ...)
>
> A major MIS-UNDERSTANDING I would like to clear up IMMEDIATELY:
>
> Rexx2Nrx (as you can see from www.Rexx2Nrx.com) is a *FREE Product*
>
> I'm sorry that the (very old) Powepoint Presentation on my home-page does
> give
> you antoher impression.... Originally, I thought, I can eratch MONEY out of
> Rexx2Nrx ... Wrong impression, which I did meanwhile (some 6 years ago),
> correct....
>
> Rey (::== Rexx for Java:: as Rexx2Nrx, will be also * a FREE Product *)
>
> Sorry I do have to report that testing and document it takes so much of
> (my)
> time. I'm only one person, yopu know ?
>
> And:
>
> Rey (Rexx for Java), which is the thing I'm currently working on,
> is also *a FREE Product*, and will go out, hopefully very soon,
>
> *when*
>
> I did COMPLETE my ** all of my tests **
>
> with my (OWN) implementations of
>
> EXECIO (IBM CMS / zOS compatible), and my INTERPRET implementation,
> and my own (classic Rexx compatible) TRACE implementation.
>
> All those enhancements do need a proper time of testing, sorry.
>
> But I'm well under the way...
>
> Thomas Schneider (vulgo Tom.)
> From Dark Vienna
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
>

--
Dream of the Daily Mail
It is the Holy Grail
And then the BBC
Your life would be complete

-Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ns.hursley.ibm.com/pipermail/ibm-netrexx/attachments/20100212/2ccc9ebb/attachment-0001.html

Thomas.Schneider.Wien

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

Hi Fernando Cassia ,
I do have *NO idea* at all, which LICENCE type would be the most
approiate.

I'll simply making the effort of my past 40 Years *OPEN SOURCE*

You, and all there.

Which LICENCE would you suggest ?

Tom.

www.db-123.com
www.Rexx2Nrx.com

PS: Anyway, seeing you at a *beer* here in Austria, *would be nice*.

**or** where I can meet you, *personally* ??

==================================================================
schrieb:

> Free as in "Free Beer" or "Free as in Freedom"?. :) GPL license?.
>
> FC
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> There has been (from Robert Hamiltons reply recent on this
> REXXLA-list ...)
>
> A major MIS-UNDERSTANDING I would like to clear up IMMEDIATELY:
>
> Rexx2Nrx (as you can see from www.Rexx2Nrx.com
> <http://www.Rexx2Nrx.com>) is a *FREE Product*
>
> I'm sorry that the (very old) Powepoint Presentation on my
> home-page does give
> you antoher impression.... Originally, I thought, I can eratch
> MONEY out of
> Rexx2Nrx ... Wrong impression, which I did meanwhile (some 6 years
> ago),
> correct....
>
> Rey (::== Rexx for Java:: as Rexx2Nrx, will be also * a FREE
> Product *)
>
> Sorry I do have to report that testing and document it takes so
> much of (my)
> time. I'm only one person, yopu know ?
>
> And:
>
> Rey (Rexx for Java), which is the thing I'm currently working on,
> is also *a FREE Product*, and will go out, hopefully very soon,
>
> *when*
>
> I did COMPLETE my ** all of my tests **
>
> with my (OWN) implementations of
>
> EXECIO (IBM CMS / zOS compatible), and my INTERPRET implementation,
> and my own (classic Rexx compatible) TRACE implementation.
>
> All those enhancements do need a proper time of testing, sorry.
>
> But I'm well under the way...
>
> Thomas Schneider (vulgo Tom.)
> >From Dark Vienna
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dream of the Daily Mail
> It is the Holy Grail
> And then the BBC
> Your life would be complete
>
> -Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
>

Tom. (ths@db-123.com)

Fernando Cassia-2

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Fernando Cassia ,
> I do have *NO idea* at all, which LICENCE type would be the most
> approiate.
>
> I'll simply making the effort of my past 40 Years *OPEN SOURCE*
>
> You, and all there.
>
> Which LICENCE would you suggest ?
>
> Tom.
>

I like what Sun has done with OpenOffice. Dual-licensing it, with a GPL and
another Apache-type license
It allows every enhancement to continue to be free, and it allows others to
build on top of that and release commercial code if they want (see
StarOffice).

Just my $0.02...
FC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ns.hursley.ibm.com/pipermail/ibm-netrexx/attachments/20100212/7c5776e8/attachment.html

Thomas.Schneider.Wien

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

Hi Fernando.
*thank you so much*

... for your follow UP:

I, however would LIKE to have *ONE SINGLE OPENED SOURCE* licence
(for me). I'm tooo old to bother with 2 Licencees.

Sorry to say,
Tom.
=========================================================

Fernando Cassia schrieb:

>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando Cassia ,
> I do have *NO idea* at all, which LICENCE type would be the most
> approiate.
>
> I'll simply making the effort of my past 40 Years *OPEN SOURCE*
>
> You, and all there.
>
> Which LICENCE would you suggest ?
>
> Tom.
>
>
> I like what Sun has done with OpenOffice. Dual-licensing it, with a
> GPL and another Apache-type license
> It allows every enhancement to continue to be free, and it allows
> others to build on top of that and release commercial code if they
> want (see StarOffice).
>
> Just my $0.02...
> FC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
>

Tom. (ths@db-123.com)

Fernando Cassia-2

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

The only difference of having it dual-licensed is that you would include TWO
LICENSE FILES with the source code. The user then chooses which one he wants
to apply.

This is the approach used by Mozilla.org for their Mozilla and Firefox
browsers...

See here:

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
*

*Multi-licensing* is the practice of distributing
software<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software>under two or more
different sets of terms and conditions. This may mean
multiple different licenses <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licenses> or sets
of licenses. Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used,
e.g. *tri-licensed* for software licensed under three different licenses.
When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms they want
to use or distribute the software under.

Also
http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/entry/glassfish_and_cddl

" We will thus be *dual licensed* - actually tripple licensed, if you count
the commercial licenses. Being dual-license is not that unusual; for
example, Mozilla is triple-licensed <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/> (GPL,
LGPL, MPL). Dual license means extra flexibility to customers of GlassFish:
some partners and enterprises may prefer CDDL while some Linux distributors
may like GPL better."

But then, that?s just my personal opinion. If all the source code is yours,
you?re free to use whatever compatible licenseS you like, without much extra
work.

FC

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Fernando.
> *thank you so much*
>
> ... for your follow UP:
>
> I, however would LIKE to have *ONE SINGLE OPENED SOURCE* licence
> (for me). I'm tooo old to bother with 2 Licencees.
>
> Sorry to say,
> Tom.
> =========================================================
>
> Fernando Cassia schrieb:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]<mailto:
>> [hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Fernando Cassia ,
>> I do have *NO idea* at all, which LICENCE type would be the most
>> approiate.
>>
>> I'll simply making the effort of my past 40 Years *OPEN SOURCE*
>>
>> You, and all there.
>>
>> Which LICENCE would you suggest ?
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>>
>> I like what Sun has done with OpenOffice. Dual-licensing it, with a GPL
>> and another Apache-type license
>> It allows every enhancement to continue to be free, and it allows others
>> to build on top of that and release commercial code if they want (see
>> StarOffice).
>>
>> Just my $0.02...
>> FC
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
>

Thomas.Schneider.Wien

Rexx2Nrx release 4.00 and the next release (Rey)

Hello FERNADO,

.. as alredy said, I * DO NOT* Want a DUAL License....

What I##m seeking of, is the >*best advise+ <

I can get .....

.... which General available PUBLIC LICENSE corntact shall I choooooe,
from the may available, for MY Software (developed sincer 40 years now,
anyway ((but I'm an OLD man ...)))

Master Tom.
============================================================

...
Fernando Cassia schrieb:

> The only difference of having it dual-licensed is that you would
> include TWO LICENSE FILES with the source code. The user then chooses
> which one he wants to apply.
>
> This is the approach used by Mozilla.org for their Mozilla and Firefox
> browsers...
>
> See here:
>
> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
> *
>
> *Multi-licensing* is the practice of distributing software
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software> under two or more different
> sets of terms and conditions. This may mean multiple different
> licenses <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licenses> or sets of licenses.
> Prefixes may be used to indicate the number of licenses used, e.g.
> *tri-licensed* for software licensed under three different licenses.
>
> When software is multi-licensed, recipients can choose which terms
> they want to use or distribute the software under.
>
> Also
> http://blogs.sun.com/theaquarium/entry/glassfish_and_cddl
>
> " We will thus be /dual licensed/ - actually tripple licensed, if you
> count the commercial licenses. Being dual-license is not that unusual;
> for example, Mozilla is triple-licensed <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/>
> (GPL, LGPL, MPL). Dual license means extra flexibility to customers of
> GlassFish: some partners and enterprises may prefer CDDL while some
> Linux distributors may like GPL better."
>
> But then, that?s just my personal opinion. If all the source code is
> yours, you?re free to use whatever compatible licenseS you like,
> without much extra work.
>
> FC
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Thomas Schneider <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando.
> *thank you so much*
>
> ... for your follow UP:
>
> I, however would LIKE to have *ONE SINGLE OPENED SOURCE* licence
> (for me). I'm tooo old to bother with 2 Licencees.
>
> Sorry to say,
> Tom.
> =========================================================
>
> Fernando Cassia schrieb:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Thomas Schneider
> <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>
> Hi Fernando Cassia ,
> I do have *NO idea* at all, which LICENCE type would be
> the most
> approiate.
>
> I'll simply making the effort of my past 40 Years *OPEN
> SOURCE*
>
> You, and all there.
>
> Which LICENCE would you suggest ?
>
> Tom.
>
>
> I like what Sun has done with OpenOffice. Dual-licensing it,
> with a GPL and another Apache-type license
> It allows every enhancement to continue to be free, and it
> allows others to build on top of that and release commercial
> code if they want (see StarOffice).
>
> Just my $0.02...
> FC
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dream of the Daily Mail
> It is the Holy Grail
> And then the BBC
> Your life would be complete
>
> -Manic Street Preachers, "Royal Correspondent"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
>

Tom. (ths@db-123.com)