RexxLA can only appear as owner of this work if you have taken the step to donate the work to RexxLA.  If you have not done that (and RexxLA has not in turn accepted the donation), then it woiuld not be appropriate to list them as the owner.  At this point, it we would not want to take ownership of this under the ooRexx umbrella since there is not yet an OS/2 port of the code.  This is not to say that RexxLA might not agree to accept the donation as a separate project in its own right.


On 11/28/05, Michael Lueck <> wrote:
At this point, with ooRexxOS2 off in a separate SF project, is it appropriate
for RexxLA to appear as owner and (c) of work I/we are doing on the project?

Calls to RexxUtl2.dll are going to be in my jams and jellies so long as I am
stuck using CRexx on OS/2. That is my testing ground for API's that are
targeted for ooRexxOS2's RexxUtil.dll. For now I have left identification as if
it is a RexxLA project.

Rather ask now then have someone run strings against RexxUtl2.dll, contact Chip
or others, and have ugly words pointed at me.


Michael Lueck
Lueck Data Systems

This email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
Oorexx-devel mailing list