Re: Re: Peter still in misery (was: Jan doesn't want Peter to know (was: Peter wants

pa3efu wrote:

> The
> other issues have been discussed before and a renewed discussion is
> unlikely to shed new light on things.

I guess I too am ready to simply agree-to-disagree.   With regard to
S/390-land EMULATION, I've seen the following from IBM:

1)   patent license ===>software license
2)   no patent license ===> no software license

What you seem to argue is that Herc is eligible for the following:

3)  no patent license ====> software license

An existance proof example of a commercial software license in lieu of
patent licenses would go a long way toward establishing that
possibility.

A far as trade secrets and licensed/restricted techology,  I have
reasons for my own belief that such materials have found their way
either into or aiding of Hercules  (with the simplest example being the
postings by users of unlicensed software stacks  in helping to wring out
the underlying Herc code), but once again the real issue is what does
IBM believe.

> I think that you are underestimating the power of open source
> development here.

I think not.   Open source development + internet is a powerful
combination, but Herc could have been
done by closed+internet where those who you let into a closed view of
the source are the same 40 or 50 folks
you are talkin' about.  (The z/Herc list is after all a closed list of
about 40 folks according to the yahoo vestibule page at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/zHercules/)   If you went commercial as
the QPL would allow, my bet is you wouldn't need open source, or even
perhaps the 40 or 50 guys to maintain it, but you would need the net.

> We had some experimental 64 bit implementations in hercules well
> before the zPOP was available.

What did you do to get there, disassemble licensed software?


> (maybe I should patent this idea, if I have to believe
> you I could then be a rich man one day, as I believe that future
> mainframe systems will include these architectures in this way)

I believe you are not first in line on that one.

> John Erhman stated in a conversation about the 64 bit architecture
> in november 2000 that the zPOP would describe "all elements of the
> 64 bit architecture".  John has been 100% correct, I have not found
> anything so far that would indicate otherwise,  nor do I believe
> that anyone else has.

Now that our 64-bit architecture implementation is out the door, I asked
the do-ers about this, and
their answer is they don't agree.

PDW



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/dpFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/