Re: More [email protected] [from herc/390][email protected]

--- In [email protected], "somitcw" <somitcw@e...> 
wrote:
> 
>     I'm not a mouth-piece, but MVS 3.8j SYS1.AMODGEN
>  member IHAPSA could be modified.  Adding a field
>  that you need to assemble a program shouldn't be
>  a problem.  I believe that copying the SYS1.MODGEN
>  member IHAPSA from zOS for use on an unlicensed
>  platform or to redistribute is illegal.  There
>  could be exceptions.

Yes, I'm not talking about copying the current IHAPSA from z/OS. I 
gather then, in your personal opinion, modifying the 3.8j IHAPSA so 
that it happens to be functionally equivalent to say, the z/OS 
IHAPSA, is allowable. 
 
> >You couldn't create a RACF clone for 3.8j if as
> >soon as you create a lookalike parameter list
> >you're in violation.
> 
>     Still another RACF look-alike?  There were
>  a couple of freebies, ACF2, and Top Secret.
>  If you want write still another one, please do.

Perhaps a bad example. What I meant is that products (like RACF) have 
defined interfaces. So other programs that invoke their services will 
pass a parameter list in a certain format because that's what the 
called program expects. So if you were cloning a product to provide 
the same functionality, you would necessarily have to accept the same 
parameter list format.  My question was, is that in fact allowed ? 

ISPF maybe is a better example. Suppose I clone it, call it TSAGEDIT. 
Now any existing program invokes ISPF services via calling ISPLINK 
and passing 2 CL8 fields with service names. In order to be 
compatible, my clone would have to accept a parameter list that 
starts with 2 CL8 fields that contain service names. If the copyright 
of the macro that defines IBM's version means that I'm forbidden to 
use a parameter list that starts with 2 CL8 fields, then it means 
there's no way to clone ISPF and have it be compatible with already 
compiled programs out there.

Based on your answer about IHAPSA, I guess your non-legal opinion is, 
it's probably ok.

>     Did I mention that I'm not a mouth-piece?

Hmm, I think so. I'm not looking to build an empire, merely seeking 
some opinions. If say, many people said "No chance, you can't do 
that" then I would suspect that a particular idea was bad. If, on the 
other hand, general opinion was "Should be ok", then *maybe* that 
idea won't get squashed by IBM. I'm well aware that "The people on 
the list said it would be ok" isn't a defence. I'm just trying to get 
an idea of what's forbidden vs what's *probably* ok. 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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/