I don't feel that the CBTTape is a good place for general "documentation" which people need to "peruse" at their leisure. That's why I think that a Wiki-like site to parallel the CBTTape code site would be useful. Perhaps Sam would be open to a edit-restricted Wiki hosted at cbttape.org. Where people could submit "articles" to be included into the Wiki. And then easily read from a simple browser. What I would be trying to avoid is the necessity of a person to "download" the data for off-line reading. Being the "weird" person that I am, I have been trying to figure out some "better" way to distribute code than the current CBTTape packaging. To Sam's credit, I haven't really been able to. I am now trying to figure out how to directly download a CBTTape file to a z/OS system and process it there. I.e. eliminate the need to download to a "desktop", unzip, then ftp to the mainframe. Why? Because (as most know) I am weird.
-- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Bill Fairchild > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 7:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Correction to Carmine's Book Cost > > How would this proposed data base, new list server, or whatever it may > become, differ from the CBT tape? > > Bill Fairchild > Programmer > Rocket Software > 408 Chamberlain Park Lane * Franklin, TN 37069-2526 * USA > t: +1.617.614.4503 * e: [email protected] * w: > www.rocketsoftware.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of scott > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 7:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Correction to Carmine's Book Cost > > A thought - was to have Carmine join us, which would be nice, but we > would expand on his good work. It too would avoid legal complications > as well. > > On 10/29/2012 01:44 PM, Mike Schwab wrote: > > > > Yes, emails are (implied) copyrighted when you make them available > for > > other computers to see (post on a web page or send an email, drafts > or > > password protected files excluded), even without an explicit > copyright > > notice. > > > > Reworking someone else's copyrighted work it becomes a jointly > > authored work if you include them as the author and should had their > > authorization (something like a wiki you acknowledge subsequent > > authors have the right to modify the document). You should include a > > reference to the original. > > > > Reworking someone else's work making it look like they were the sole > > author is one form of a crime (similar to libel). > > > > Copying (and or reworking) someone else's work looking like it is > your > > sole work is another form of a crime (similar to theft). > > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM, McKown, John > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think another email forum for the z is needed. We have IBM- > MAIN, IBMTCP-L, MVS-OE, CICS-L, ASSEMBLER-LIST, Linux-390 and likely > even more. IANAL, but I wonder what the copyright status is of the > messages which are sent on a public email forum. I just don't see how > anybody could assert a copyright claim on them (thinking about Lindy's > response about one person who considers his knowledge to be his > "property"). So maintaining an independent archive is likely legal (if > not, Google is in trouble). I also wonder how much "editing" that one > could get away with. What I was thinking of was perhaps a "raw archive" > (perhaps indexed or threaded) and, from that, make an FAQ "wiki" like > site which took the information, organized it, but include hyperlinks > back to the "raw archive" message(s) from which the information was > "cribbed". Might even have links to vendor documentation, if such is > available. IBM very nicely has a good Web documentation site that I > often reference in a reply so that other's can evaluate things for > themselves. All that I've been able to find for CA are PDF documents, > and you need to log into their support site to get access to them. So I > doubt it would be legal to "webify" them so that you could give a > hyperlink to a web page containing their information. Other vendors > seem to be like CA. They don't seem to want their documentation to be > easily accessed via the Web in an "unfettered" manner. Oh, wait, > Dovetail Technologies "man" pages for their zero-cost software is > easily gotten to via "unfettered access" and hyperlinks. > >> > >> -- > >> John McKown > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
