“Open Object Rexx as legal successor and derivative work of Object Rexx”
Having said that, I would like to flag this as a contentious subject, because solving this, IMHO, does not serve any useful purpose. Also, we have several jurisdictions, with you being in Austria, RexxLA being in North Carolina, me being in Amsterdam (except for now, on Aruba with Aruban Law based on Dutch Law but for some aspects not on European Law …). In Dutch Law for example, most of what you write is forever yours, and large companies requiring you to sign your code over to them can only in corner cases do that legally (if they can show *very* specific assignments and compensations) and most of the time they lose in court afterwards anyway. IBM in the US must be different, but most of the older code was from Boeblingen. Most of it now is Rick’s, and was before that, also. Although the Board should take decisions about these things, my personal view here is that this would only matter if their is some blatant misuse (reputation-wise, which is stipulated in the contract we signed with IBM) which is not covered by the CPL. For example, everybody is free to fork any open source repo and call it something else (and people did, also with ooRexx) with the only requirement of including some file, notice or other. Remembering JOVIAL (Jules’s Own Version of the International Algorithmic Language) for Algol 58 shows that the best structure for maintenance of language infrastructure eventually can claim the rights - and deliver the preferred language for the defense department. (And did the Algol-58 committee sue the military-industrial complex? No, that would have been unwise.) I think that RexxLA is that structure (we have to keep proving that), but the team’s decisions are their own, and we should all be very pleasant about it, and thankful for everyone who wants to work on it. best regards, René. > On 6 Jan 2023, at 12:43, Erich Steinböck <erich.steinbo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi René, > >> persons employed by IBM at the time, and in charge of Object Rexx > but then would IBM trademarks not have been for maybe "oRexx or "Object > Rexx", but not "ooRexx" or "Open Object Rexx"? > > _______________________________________________ > Oorexx-devel mailing list > Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________ Oorexx-devel mailing list Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
