Going to buy a new pc

Hercules license announcement

Roger Bowler

Nov 26, 2000

I intend to remove the ban on commercial use and distribution of
Hercules.

To this end, Jay Maynard and I have decided that it will be in
the project's best interests to release Hercules under a new
license which conforms to the Open Source Definition published by
http://www.opensource.org

The license we have chosen is the Q Public License (QPL) at
http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/license.html
with the choice of law section changed to refer to English law,
as permitted by the QPL.

The QPL closely matches the HPL in both scope and intent, the
principal difference being that the QPL allows free commercial
use and distribution, subject to certain conditions.

The website will be updated within the next few days to reflect
this change.

Regards,
Roger Bowler

3:19 pm

Re: Hercules license announcement

Richard Higson

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 03:19:29PM +0000, Roger Bowler wrote:
> To this end, Jay Maynard and I have decided that it will be in
> the project's best interests to release Hercules under a new
> license which conforms to the Open Source Definition published by
> http://www.opensource.org
Roger - this is VERY good news. THANK YOU.
I hope that you will see fit to do the same for your SNA-suite.

I'd hate to know that there's a functional non-vapourware SNA suite just
sitting there collecting dust, just because it can't be "marketed".

The only other *working* SNA I've seen for/on Linux was from
http://www.gcom.com,
However, it was 1) streams-based, (which won't make the kernel people any
happier)
and 2) also OCO, which is why I haven't spent any time on it.

I think that the team you have running now will be able to try/test/improve
your SNA-suite to the point where we could offer the Mainframe AND SNA
under the same license, and that it'd fly.

Instead of getting sour about vapourware (linux-sna.org) and people who
"expect their software and support to come free, gratis, and for nothing"
I'd like to see what this group could do with your SNA suite.

Give it a thought.

Richard
-- You don't have to be faster than the Bear that's chasing you.
You merely need to be faster than the others running with you.
... from "Maintaining System Security" ...
Have a nice day ;-) Richard Higson mailto:Richard.Higson@...

Re: Hercules license announcement

Roger Bowler

Nov 26, 2000

Richard Higson wrote:
> I hope that you will see fit to do the same for your SNA-suite.
> I'd hate to know that there's a functional non-vapourware SNA suite
just
> sitting there collecting dust, just because it can't be "marketed".

Richard,

Due to lack of interest, the SNA suite is in imminent danger of being
sold off to a single customer and thus being lost forever to the open
source world.

Much as I would dearly love to release it as open source, my landlord
hasn't yet seen fit to open source the lease on my flat, and
unaccountably he still wants to charge me a monthly rental. Nor have
Sainsburys yet announced any plans to open source their food. So
regrettably I have to spend my days working at an ISV 76 miles away,
which doesn't leave me any time to support the SNA code.

How about putting an offer on the table which would enable me to
release it and continue supporting it under an open source license?

Regards,
Roger Bowler

9:40 pm

Re: Hercules license announcement

Stuart Tener

Nov 26, 2000

--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, Roger Bowler <rbowler@s...> wrote:
> I intend to remove the ban on commercial use and distribution of
> Hercules.
>
> To this end, Jay Maynard and I have decided that it will be in
> the project's best interests to release Hercules under a new
> license which conforms to the Open Source Definition published by
> http://www.opensource.org
>
> The license we have chosen is the Q Public License (QPL) at
> http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/license.html
> with the choice of law section changed to refer to English law,
> as permitted by the QPL.

I have not as yet read the QPL, so I cannot comment (yet) on its
functionality. HOWEVER, I do feel we are about to give up a rather
interesting opportunity. Can we have a license which specifically
precludes the commercial use of Hercules by IBM with operating
systems which have not themselves been specifically allowed (via
license modifications) to run under Hercules, and/or be used absent
normal licensing requirements?

And then allow everyone else (accept competing emulation software
authors as well) from doing whatever they pleased?

Stuart

>
> The QPL closely matches the HPL in both scope and intent, the
> principal difference being that the QPL allows free commercial
> use and distribution, subject to certain conditions.
>
> The website will be updated within the next few days to reflect
> this change.
>
> Regards,
> Roger Bowler

10:04 pm

Re: Hercules license announcement

Jay Maynard

Nov 26, 2000

On Sun, Nov 26, 2000 at 10:04:10PM -0000, Stuart Tener, IT3, USNR-R wrote:
> HOWEVER, I do feel we are about to give up a rather
> interesting opportunity. Can we have a license which specifically
> precludes the commercial use of Hercules by IBM with operating
> systems which have not themselves been specifically allowed (via
> license modifications) to run under Hercules, and/or be used absent
> normal licensing requirements?

Such a license would not comply with the Open Source Definition. Since the
whole idea is to conform to that definition, doing that wouldn't accomplish
much.

Besides, I'm not at all sure that such a license would be enforceable. IBM
has already used Hercules internally, as I understand it, and that's a
violation of the old license...the problem is that suing IBM to enforce it
is a long, drawn-out, expen$ive proposition.

10:11 pm

Re: Hercules license announcement

Roger Bowler

Nov 26, 2000

Stuart Tener wrote:
> Can we have a license which specifically
> precludes the commercial use of Hercules by IBM

No. One of the aims of this project is to support IBM by increasing
the pervasiveness of S/390 technology. I have no desire to put
obstacles in the way of that aim.

Roger Bowler

10:40 pm

Re: Hercules license announcement

Stuart Tener

Nov 27, 2000

--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, "Roger Bowler" <listmanager@s...>
wrote:
> Stuart Tener wrote:
> > Can we have a license which specifically
> > precludes the commercial use of Hercules by IBM
>
> No. One of the aims of this project is to support IBM by increasing
> the pervasiveness of S/390 technology. I have no desire to put
> obstacles in the way of that aim.
>
> Roger Bowler

Roger:

I think you are mistaking my idea.

I am interested in creating verbiage in the license to the effect
that IBMs defacto use of Hercules implies (by their usage) the
acceptance of allowing (1) IBM OSes to be run on Hercules absent a
licensing fee per processor; (2) that such licensing is limited to
non commercial use.

If this language is included in the license, then the simple act of a
single IBM employee using the product, would activate that language.
The IBM lawyers would have a hard time arguing their way out of it.

Such, they would be forced to comply with the language of the
contract, as their action (by perhaps other employees) would
demonstrate their acceptance.

I do not wish to impeed the commercial use, or the act of promoting
S/390 use in the world either. I am trying to creatively create a
situation which IBM may "accidently" place themselves in a situation
of having accepted the license terms as ammended by my commentary
herein above.

I could (if you like) provide a law student to write such language
into the license, and thus IBMs use of Hercules (beyond the date of
the publishing of such an ammended license) would imply their concent.

Documentation of only a single action constituting an acceptance by
action, would in fact need only be provided to IBM legal once. Then
they would be stuck. Since obviously they have interest in H/390 (as
evidanced by their documentation of it in a RedBook published in SEP
2000) we must presume (for the moment) they will continue to use it,
even in the face of updated licensing structures. Proof of one single
event of usage is all that is needed. A simple videotaping of a
demonstration of Hercules being used by IBM would suffice.

Stuart

12:33 am

Re: Hercules license announcement

Roger Bowler

Nov 27, 2000

--- In hercules-390@egroups.com, "Stuart Tener, IT3, USNR-R"
<stuart@b...> wrote:
> I think you are mistaking my idea.
> I am interested in creating verbiage in the license to the effect
> that IBMs defacto use of Hercules implies (by their usage) the
> acceptance of allowing (1) IBM OSes to be run on Hercules absent a
> licensing fee per processor; (2) that such licensing is limited to
> non commercial use.
> If this language is included in the license, then the simple act of
a
> single IBM employee using the product, would activate that
language.
> The IBM lawyers would have a hard time arguing their way out of it.

Stuart, you cannot be serious. Aside from the dubious ethics of this
scheme, it's hard to think of anything which would be more
counterproductive. I would never consider such an idea.

Roger Bowler

12:26 pm