Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990830230922.0090d100@dce03.ipt.br>
X-Sender: csrabak AT dce03 DOT ipt DOT br
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:09:22 -0300
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: "Cesar S. Rabak" <csrabak AT ipt DOT br>
Subject: Re: Can we vote on letting RSXNTDJ rest in peace?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990829143818.9438l-100000@is>
References: <Tnvx3.6784$ei1 DOT 13774 AT newsfeeds DOT bigpond DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

At 14:38 29/08/99 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
>But if RSXNTDJ is a good solution, and all it needs is some work on
>getting its installation easier for the uninitiated, then the Right
>Thing to do is to take over its maintenance, not to boycot it.  This
>is how things are done in the Free Software world: if the previous
>maintainer is unable or unwilling to support a good package, someone
>else should stand in and take over.
>
Agreed and seconded. Now _my_ (another :-) ) real question: does the way
Rainier put his license allow this? If yes, as I mentioned earlier, we
could end up with a similar rebirth as happened with GRX (BTW a good point,
because is a success story), if not, IMHO we are stuck again with the need
to get an answer from the author!

I'm not a license lawyer, but I have mixed feeling if the present license
set forth for RSXNTDJ allows to take the maintenance, even if the author
lost its interest in the package. But again _is a feeling_ not a positive
affirmation.

HTH

Cesar