Lawyers

Feb 25, 2002

> Still, I wonder how many of the 2000 are lurking lawyers.

If there were going to do something, seems like they would have squashed
it immediately, in it's infancy. Many of the users of Hercules are
IBMers themselves. Hercules is included in an IBM Redbook on Linux.
We've begged them for some type of hobby OS/390 license. There have
been high profile meetings at the SHARE conference. Everything is out
in the open.

I noticed in the new z/OS.e that it's a limited system in that only
allows 8 TSO users and has other restrictions. If they can deliver a
limited z/OS.e, why not a z/OS.h for a hobby version. I wouldn't think
the same restrictions would apply (the HLL restrictions would bite) but
that IBM could find some combination of things to eliminate it from use
in a commericial environment.

8:26 am

Re: Lawyers

Tony Harminc

Feb 25, 2002

On Monday 25 February 2002 at 10:26, David Alcock wrote:

> > Still, I wonder how many of the 2000 are lurking lawyers.
>
> If there were going to do something, seems like they would have
> squashed it immediately, in it's infancy. Many of the users of
> Hercules are IBMers themselves. Hercules is included in an IBM
> Redbook on Linux. We've begged them for some type of hobby OS/390
> license. There have been high profile meetings at the SHARE
> conference. Everything is out in the open.

There are, IMHO, two quite different problems here, and they may
worry different groups within IBM.

The first is that availability of Hercules out there may encourage
running of unlicensed IBM Program Products like OS/390, with
corresponding loss of revenue to IBM. I don't think this is perceived
as a big threat, because the sort of customer that wants to run
OS/390 et al probably isn't going to run it on an unlicensed and
unsupported box in any case, and there is no lost revenue from
hobbyist users, demos, etc.

The second is that Hercules doubtless violates a zillion (well,
probably a good handful of) IBM patents. Again, no real lost revenue,
until someone tries to use a Hercules based system instead of a real
IBM box or instead of a commercial emulator whose vendor has licensed
the patents from IBM. Then there is real lost revenue, and the bean-
counters and bean-strategizers need to get to work to decide if the
value to IBM of having Herc out there in the field is greater than
what would be realized from licensing the patents. And there is also
the issue of allowing one maker of S390 compatibles (Hercules) free
use of the patents, whereas all the others (Amdahl, Hitachi, etc.)
have to pay. That would be a clear violation of IBM's stated policy
on Intellectual Property, which is to license on non-discriminatory
terms. Perhaps because Hercules is free, and the patents may be
licensed on a percentage of revenue basis...

No, I'm not a lawyer, but it's fun to pretend once in a while.

Tony H.

10:18 am

Re: Lawyers

Jay Maynard

Feb 25, 2002

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 01:18:36PM -0500, Tony Harminc wrote:
> The first is that availability of Hercules out there may encourage
> running of unlicensed IBM Program Products like OS/390, with
> corresponding loss of revenue to IBM. I don't think this is perceived
> as a big threat, because the sort of customer that wants to run
> OS/390 et al probably isn't going to run it on an unlicensed and
> unsupported box in any case, and there is no lost revenue from
> hobbyist users, demos, etc.

The Hercules documentation for 2.16 will be updated to document a new config
file parameter that must be specified to run licensed program product OSes.
The idea is to reinforce the user's responsibility to comply with all terms
of his software license.

> The second is that Hercules doubtless violates a zillion (well,
> probably a good handful of) IBM patents. Again, no real lost revenue,
> until someone tries to use a Hercules based system instead of a real
> IBM box or instead of a commercial emulator whose vendor has licensed
> the patents from IBM.

It would not surprise me to learn that IBM would approach a user of Hercules
to assert its rights in any patents Hercules may violate. (I do not know
whether or not Hercules violates any IBM patents; in the US, it has been
held that, legally, only a patent attorney is competent to hold an opinion
one way or the other on that subject.)

> Perhaps because Hercules is free, and the patents may be
> licensed on a percentage of revenue basis...

Or perhaps it's because the IBMer who told Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond,
two of the leading lights of the open source movement, that IBM would not
pursue patent claims against open source developers was in fact expressing
IBM policy.

11:42 am