mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) (09/18/88)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > Note also that one of the Working Groups set up at DevCon is involved in > movin the "current" standard to a loadable/sharable library. If you do > thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure. I think my subject line says it all... -Mark- UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley BIX: mriley LAT: 34.25 N INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com PLINK: SONIX LONG: 118.78 W "Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..." ;-)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/18/88)
In article <7038@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> Note also that one of the Working Groups set up at DevCon is involved in >> movin the "current" standard to a loadable/sharable library. If you do >> thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure. > >I think my subject line says it all... Given that so far ALL messages have ben against any change in the IFF standard, I wish you and Wade good luck :-) -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (09/18/88)
mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> Note also that one of the Working Groups set up at DevCon is involved in >> movin the "current" standard to a loadable/sharable library. If you do >> thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure. > >I think my subject line says it all... > Besides that, such a group is a myth (at least no one I've spoken to at C= knows of a functiong IFF W.G.). Also, having read the Working group proposal, what incentive do we have to join? Seems we pay all the expenses, and C= gets the rigths to the code. (^ oops, "rights") Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM Opionions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/19/88)
In article <3447@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >Also, having read the Working group proposal, what incentive do we have to >join? Seems we pay all the expenses, and C= gets the rigths to the code. Note that the current IFF specification and code is Public Domain, and EA wrote that one. Still after the 5+ messages asking you to substantiate your allegations I haven't seen one "specific" answer from you. What's the deal? I guess I wish you good luck. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (09/19/88)
In article <7038@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >> If you do >> thing on your own, without CBM's blessing you are simply bound to failure. > >I think my subject line says it all... > Mark, I just don't understand why you're so hostile toward CBM's tech group. Consider: o I don't use shell enhancement tools because they're non-standard. Developing software for the masses means testing it on a vanilla system. o ARP is non-standard. How many commercial houses do you know (apart from MircoSmiths) that write code for it? How many run-of-the-mill people do you know who write code using it? o ARexx is non-standard. While a nice package, its use is not as widespread as it could or should be. Now, if CBM were to buy ARP and make it part of 1.4, then its use would increase by a whole lot. I am now prepared to use a shell enhancement tool; namely, 1.3's shell. Why? Because it's standard. How many software developers do you think I would be able to convince to use the iff.library Stu and I are working on in code for public consumption? Not as many as would use it if CBM "blessed" it. When CBM blesses something, you're guaranteed that all the users will have access to the blessed thing, and can write supportable code around it. If the user calls and asks, "My program doesn't work," he won't be terribly impressed if you start giving convoluted instructions for copying the correct version of the arp.library into his LIBS: directory. On the other hand, if the user says, "My program doesn't work," you can ask, "Did you delete the iff.library from your Workbench LIBS: directory?" "Yes, I did." "Well, put it back; it needs it." Having CBM bless things relieves you of a great deal of support responsibility. If you want to do something, and it's blessed by CBM, then you are clean. If it's not blessed, You Are On Your Own. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (09/20/88)
In article <3447@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >Also, having read the Working group proposal, what incentive do we have to >join? [ ... ] > Fame, something to put on your resume, adoration from Amiga developers everywhere. I can't see Commodore being completely unappreciative of a valuable contribution to their products, nor would I expect people to turn over such projects to Commodore without some sort of renumeration. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes: UUCP: pacbell > !{well,unicom}!ewhac O----^o The Only Way To Fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
stevex@ziebmef.uucp (Steve Tibbett) (09/21/88)
ARP actually IS in use by a number of commercial software houses. Publishing Partner Professional, I believe, will require ARP (and will include it). Microsmiths of course, and a couple of others I have heard of but cannot remember offhand. Same with ARexx - WP spoke of ARexx support in PE, CygnusEd handles it as does VLT, Microfiche Filer, AmicTerm(I believe) and who knows what else. WMaybe REQUIRING it's use isn't a good idea, but supporting it sure is. ...Steve (I gotta make myself a signature file someday..)
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (09/22/88)
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >In article <3447@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >>Also, having read the Working group proposal, what incentive do we have to >>join? [ ... ] >> > Fame, something to put on your resume, adoration from Amiga >developers everywhere. > > I can't see Commodore being completely unappreciative of a valuable >contribution to their products, nor would I expect people to turn over such >projects to Commodore without some sort of renumeration. > Sure, but from what I read in the Working Groups proposal, it was not clear that the participants in the project had any rights to the resulting code. It is one thing to do something and make it PD, and quite another to be part of a WG. I'd hate to have to ask Commodore for the write to use my own code :^(. I'm not saying that this was the intent of the proposal, but I think it probably made a pass through the attorney's office at some point. I don't think I could even participate in such a thing without violating other contractual obligations. Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM Opionions expressed are mine, and not necessarily those of my employer.
stever@videovax.Tek.COM (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (09/23/88)
In article <7155@well.UUCP>, Leo Schwab (ewhac@well.UUCP) writes: > . . . > I can't see Commodore being completely unappreciative of a valuable > contribution to their products, nor would I expect people to turn over such > projects to Commodore without some sort of renumeration. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If one is "renumerated" (renumbered) often enough, does he become number 1? Steve Rice ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! * new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com [phone (503) 627-1320] old: {decvax | hplabs | uunet | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
bjc@pollux.UUCP (Betty J. Clay) (09/24/88)
AREXX support is coming in several new products. One of which I have real knowledge is SUPERBASE PRO 4.1, due to be released in October. The upgrade to SUPERBASE will have support for AREXX, will include a communications package, and purchasers will be able to get an unprotected version after registration. This information came from Tim Arnot, who is a member of the SUPERBASE development team at Precision Software in England. Betty Clay ...........killer!pollux!bjc
eric@hector.UUCP (Eric Lavitsky) (10/04/88)
In article <3458@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >>In article <3447@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >>>Also, having read the Working group proposal, what incentive do we have to >>>join? [ ... ] >>> >> Fame, something to put on your resume, adoration from Amiga >>developers everywhere. >> >> I can't see Commodore being completely unappreciative of a valuable >>contribution to their products, nor would I expect people to turn over such >>projects to Commodore without some sort of renumeration. >> > > Sure, but from what I read in the Working Groups proposal, it was not >clear that the participants in the project had any rights to the resulting >code. It is one thing to do something and make it PD, and quite another to >be part of a WG. I'd hate to have to ask Commodore for the write to use my >own code :^(. Wade - No where in the proposal does it say that any code or documents become the sole property of Commodore-Amiga. In fact the document goes out of it's way to make this clear at the *beginning* of the document: ------------ 2.3 Ownership Of Work Performed By Amiga Working Groups Any work performed by an AWG shall be the property of the developer community at large with the AWG Steering Committee acting as the agent of the developer community. The AWG Steering Committee shall grant free perpetual use licenses to any member of the developer community wishing to have access or use of any material developed by the AWG Project. No member of the developer community may be denied access or use of any material developed by an AWG. The purpose of the licensing procedure is two fold. First, to provide an owning entity so that material produced by the AWG Project will not technically be entered into the public domain. Second, to provide for a database of users and interested parties to further facilitate information flow. 2.4 Connection With Commodore-Amiga(tm) 2.4.1 Use And Non-Use Of AWG Developed Material It must be understood by all parties concerned that involvement of Commodore- Amiga in the AWG Project or in any specific AWG does not constitute any official endorsement of the work being performed by that group. Nor does it obligate Commodore-Amiga to use or not use any of the work performed by any group or any group member. Commodore-Amiga can, of course, have access to or use any material developed by the AWG Project perpetually and without any financial liability. ------------ So, while the material is not "PD", it can be regarded as "ShareWare", e.g. we will all share in it's benefits. > I'm not saying that this was the intent of the proposal, but I think >it probably made a pass through the attorney's office at some point. I don't >think I could even participate in such a thing without violating other >contractual obligations. > > Thanks, > > Wade. Interesting, and I guess we'll take that as a compliment. The original proposal was drafted by Perry and myself and sent to Commodore for review. The only real changes the reviewers wanted was changing "Commodore Business Machines" to "Commodore-Amiga". So, I suggest you re-read the proposal in it's entirety. I see nothing that would violate any normal contractual obligations a good developer would have. By the way, there is a group of people hashing out the beginnings of an IFF Working Group. Please stay tuned for more information after AmiExpo. -Eric Lavitsky AWG Steering Committee ARPA: eric@topaz.rutgers.edu or eric@ulysses.att.com UUCP: {att,ucbvax}!ulysses!eric or {wherever!}rutgers!topaz!eric SNAIL: 34 Maplehurst Ln, Piscataway, NJ 08854 "To err is human; To really f*ck up requires the root password."