timur@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) (05/01/91)
In article <1991Apr30.232122.4699@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) writes: >As for the Beta release of OS/2 2.0 being available for the general >public, first IBM said they would, then they said they wouldn't, and >now there's a really big ruckus going on with people inside saying >"oh great, first we promise the moon and then say 'maybe later'; if >we keep this up we're not going to do very well convincing our >customers that we're serious about change." But it seems someone >(lawyers?) is concerned about the little bits of Microsoft code still >lying around, and does IBM have the right to give it away? (Even Wayne, Assuming that IBM and Microsoft come to an agreement, and IBM decides to resume distribution of the Beta version on their BBS, do you think IBM will allow the code to be posted on an ftp site? ----------------------------------------------------------- The Time Traveler I used to love her a.k.a. Timur Tabi But I had to kill her Internet: timur@seas.gwu.edu I had to put her six feet under Bitnet: HE891C@GWUVM And I can still hear her complain - Guns 'n Roses
Conrad.Bullock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Conrad Bullock) (05/02/91)
In article <3143@sparko.gwu.edu>, timur@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) writes: |> Wayne, |> |> Assuming that IBM and Microsoft come to an agreement, and IBM |> decides |> to resume distribution of the Beta version on their BBS, do you |> think |> IBM will allow the code to be posted on an ftp site? They have been asked this (a lot!), and the answer is no way... -- Conrad Bullock | Domain: conrad@comp.vuw.ac.nz Victoria University of Wellington, | or: conrad@cavebbs.gen.nz New Zealand. | Fidonet: 3:771/130 | BBS: The Cave BBS +64 4 643429
larrys@watson.ibm.com (Larry Salomon, Jr.) (05/02/91)
In <3143@sparko.gwu.edu>, timur@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) writes: >Assuming that IBM and Microsoft come to an agreement, and IBM decides >to resume distribution of the Beta version on their BBS, do you think >IBM will allow the code to be posted on an ftp site? I am no authority on legal matters, but I seriously doubt it. Cheers, Larry Salomon, Jr. (aka 'Q') LARRYS@YKTVMV.BITNET OS/2 Applications and Tools larrys@ibmman.watson.ibm.com IBM T.J. Watson Research Center larrys@eng.clemson.edu Yorktown Heights, NY Disclaimer: The statements and/or opinions stated above are strictly my own and do not reflect the views of my employer. Additionally, I have a reputation for being obnoxious, so don't take any personal attacks too seriously.
tok@slammer.UUCP (Terry Kane) (05/03/91)
Well, it's final - even if IBM resumes the beta d/l bbs, you must have been a subscriber to the NSC bbs before 0900 EDT on April 30 in order to be eligible to download the beta system. IBM *is* being generous if they resume the downloading at all. The issues involved have not been fully disclosed. However, one very major reason to limit the downloading is to prevent overloading the poor guy who initiated the project in the first place. This *is* a beta program for those folks who have been active on the NSC bbs. Their reports and comments are being filtered by the tiny group of people who run the bbs - bug reports are not, repeat *not*, going straight to Boca Raton softies. I think that that is a pretty good reason to limit access in itself. Remember: this beta download program was not initiated by some talking head in the upper tiers of the old IBM's marketing hierarchy (it seems to me, anyway :-); this is being advanced by a forward thinking OS/2 enthusiast who wants to see OS/2 be the best product yet! from IBM. I commend him. I'm sorry that I mentioned it here at all.
adykes@jpradley.jpr.com (Al Dykes) (05/06/91)
In article <3143@sparko.gwu.edu> timur@seas.gwu.edu (The Time Traveler) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.232122.4699@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> wayne@csri.toronto.edu (Wayne Hayes) >writes: >>As for the Beta release of OS/2 2.0 being available for the general >>public, first IBM said they would, then they said they wouldn't, and >>now there's a really big ruckus going on with people inside saying >>"oh great, first we promise the moon and then say 'maybe later'; if >>we keep this up we're not going to do very well convincing our >>customers that we're serious about change." But it seems someone >>(lawyers?) is concerned about the little bits of Microsoft code still ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>lying around, and does IBM have the right to give it away? (Even > Is eliminating all Microsoft code a goal of OS/2 2.0 ?