[Info-vax] Most popular application programming languages on VMS ?

[Dave Froble]

On 1/14/2019 2:11 PM, John Reagan wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 1:26:42 PM UTC-5, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2019-01-14, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2019 8:24 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2019-01-12, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if John can trust the LLVM stuff he's using?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would say yes he can.
>>>>
>>>> The LLVM organisation is a large organisation with established procedures.
>>>>
>>>> That's way different from someone submitting some code to VSI and
>>>> claiming it's under a suitable licence.
>>>>
>>>> I also have no doubt the VSI lawyers gave the LLVM licence and other
>>>> other documents (such as contribution guidelines) a _full_ examination.
>>>
>>> Have to ask, what causes you to have "no doubt"?
>>>
>>
>> David, the fact you even need to ask that question shows just how
>> out of touch you are with such things.
>>
>>> Have you seen any statements to that effect?
>>>
>>> Have you asked VSI is that is so?
>>>
>>
>> No I haven't and I have no need to do so as such things in today's
>> world are as standard as acquiring building insurance and checking
>> the legality of employment contracts (for example).
>>
>>> Perhaps they did, but, what causes you to believe something for which
>>> you perhaps have no facts, statements, and such?
>>>
>>
>> I am so sure because if they didn't, it would be something that would
>> be completely at odds with today's world.
>>
>> You simply do not include something like LLVM into VMS without making
>> sure you are not contaminating the rest of VMS with some LLVM licence
>> condition as a result of doing so.
>>
>> You never, never, include code in your product without making sure
>> the licence terms for the new code are compatible with the way you
>> control and sell your product.
>>
>> There is no way VSI would decide to start using LLVM without giving
>> the LLVM licence conditions a _very_ close examination and making
>> sure it's compatible with how VMS is developed and sold.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>> --
>> Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
>> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
>
> I'll also point out that other very large companies (who employ more lawyers that would fit in our building standing shoulder-to-shoulder) are using LLVM.  Besides any vetting done by us, do you think Apple, Google, Nvidia, Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, Sony, Red Hat, and dozens more companies would adopt and use LLVM licensed code if they didn't think it was legally acceptable.
>
> Go look at the list at http://llvm.org/foundation/relicensing/
>

Understand, I don't believe in innocent parties being held responsible 
for the actions of others, and so if someone contributes any code that 
person declares "free and clear", then that person should be the only 
one held accountable, not the rest of the planet.

But, once again, devil's advocate, can you absolutely 100% guarantee 
there is no "problem code" in LLVM?  You cannot, since until some 
claimant comes forward, you cannot know if the code you're reading is in 
fact a problem.

But, yanking Simon's chain is becoming boring, so perhaps let this 
thread die a long overdue death.

:-)


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486