[hercules-390] Re: posting styles and licensing

--- In [email protected],
 "Peter D. Ward" <[email protected]> wrote:
>somitcw wrote:
>>>Steve Arnet's latest post an hour ago:  "Greg
>>>responded with a tip for tracking down my
>>>OS/390 2.8 problem(thanks Greg!) and I am
>>>currently trying to do just that.
>>>Seems your certainty is misplaced there too...
>>- - - snipped - - -
>> I assume that Greg supplied help before
>>Steve posted that he was running illegally.
>>I don't believe that Greg knowingly assisted
>>with illegal activity. 
>Steve's post wasn't specific on identity, but
>if we're talking about Greg Smith then I too
>would assume as you have.

    Steve's later posts were more specific on
 his identify.  IBM should be able to find him.

>> Peter, you keep missing one point.  While
>>IBM does not issue personal licenses to run
>>OS/390 under Hercules under Windows, I do have
>>an OS/390 license for my 9672 and IBM does not
>>prevent me from running Hercules on it.
>I've had backchatter on this idea with Adam
>from time to time.  FSI pays royalties to IBM
>because of the IBM patented functionality
>performed by Flex-ES.

    I would love to know what FunSoft thinks
 they are paying for?  As far as I know, IBM
 has never requested payment for Hercules.

> Imagine if somehow a 9672 were able to host
>Flex-ES with some resulting commercial impact
>that makes this a really neat idea in high 
>demand.  Do you think we would be able to say
>to IBM that we do not owe them royalty payments
>on any copy of Flex we licensed to be hosted
>on a 9672?

    What royalty payments do you owe them now
 and what does that have to do with Hercules
 running on a 9672?  As far as anyone knows,
 Hercules is legal software.  If IBM suspects
 otherwise, they should let someone know.
 If you suspect that Hercules is not legal
 software, please give a specific reason why
 you believe that.

    If IBM request the same Hercules royalty
 fee for my 9672 that everyone pays to run
 Hercules on their PC for MVS 3.8j, I see no
 problem.  The 9672 doesn't have enough disk
 space to run Linux so IBM wouldn't get much
 anyway.

> I can't imagine a circumstance where the
>answer would be that we don't owe them
>royalties in that case, unless we didn't owe
>them royalites in ANY case.   I believe the
>same analysis would be true for Hercules, in
>which case your implication that running Herc
>on a 9672 is some sort of safe harbor is
>probably incorrect. 

    The 'safe harbor' I mentioned was that we
 pay a small fortune for OS/390 for the 9672.
 I do not lose my license or have to stop
 paying IBM if I also run Hercules on the 9672.

>>  Some
>>IBM employees have also used Hercules.  Some
>>apparently with IBM's blessing, some apparently
>>without IBM's blessing.  Both are legal.
>Assuming that IBM were the only patent holder
>for any patented functionality embodied in
>Hercules, or assuming that Hercules embodied no
>patented functionality at all, and assuming the
>same alternatives regarding any question of
>misappropriated trade secrets or other forms of
>IP, then IBM's use as you've described it would
>likely not be assailable.

    IBM is in the best position to know if they do
 or do not own OS/390.  I won't worry about it.

>>If my 9672 melts down, I will call IBM and
>>declare a disaster and run on anything that I
>>can run on.  When I replace the 9672 with a
>>Flex box, and the Flex dongle melts down, I
>>will call IBM and declare a disaster and run
>>on anything that I can run on.
>The question is whether or not running on
>"anything that I can run on" obligates IBM to
>provide software support for the licensed
>software you are running on your choice of box.
>I believe if you were to read your customer
>agreement you may find that IBM protects
>itself from having to firefight on schlock by
>"technically" limiting your right to DR to 
>various "exhibited" machines.  This is why I
>believe all the DR (exc)uses claimed on the
>Herc list are a bunch of bunk.   I think you 
>are correct however in that if IBM had faith
>in the fidelity of the machine you were using
>IBM would in its commercial interest continue
>to support you in the event of a DR situation.
>If it's commercial interest were somehow not
>to faciliate your use of that box, then the
>contracts I've seen would appear to give them
>an out should they choose to take it.  Your
>contract's terms may of course be different
>than those I've seen.

    I don't know too much about the legal
 details, but if we have a disaster, IBM will
 help to insure that their customer ( us ) is
 taken care of the best way possible.

    If there actually are any contract terms
 that harm both IBM and their customers, the
 terms might give way to reason under extreme
 conditions.

>PDW

    The bottom line is that people that run
 OS/390 legally may post reports and questions
 on various Hercules groups, Flex-ES List, and
 other lists.  I will not assume that every
 post is from someone running unlicensed
 software.  If the post looks legit, I might
 even post a reply.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JYdFFC/XP.FAA/ySSFAA/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/