IBM withdrawal
fausap72
Jan 10, 2002
Hello,
I've found some interesting infos about the IBM withdrawal of S/370
and S/390 software.
On 4 March 2002 IBM withdrawns DB2 for OS/390 v.6, and on 30 June
2002 DB2 UDB for OS/390.
On 25 June 2002 IBM withdrawns z/OS 1.1
Then I have found another withdrawal announcement:
on 7 March 2000
MVS/BCP ver. 5 rel. all JES2
MVS/BCP ver. 5 rel. all JES3
ISPF for MVS ver. 4
SMP/E ver. 1
on 18 Dec. 1992
VM/ESA ver. 1 rel 1.1
then 31 Dec. 1992
MVS/XA JES2 ver. 2 rel. all
MVS/XA JES3 ver. 2 rel. all
Then, my question is: all the above software starting from the date
above will be free as MVS 3.8j?
If not, what's the difference? I see the withdrawal announcement for
MVS 3.8j and it seems the same.
regards and sorry if the question is stupid :-)
Fausto
9:58 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
Odilon Mader
Jan 10, 2002
Hello
I'm not any kind of authority in this matter, but from my knowledge these
are marketing and/or support withdrawals. Simply put they are saying
they'll no longer sell and/or support this stuff.
Free (or not) availability has to do with the license under which the
software was originally released.
Anyway, everything will someday get into public domain. The trouble is that
(at least here in Brazil) it takes 50 (fifty) years to any intellectual
property be public domain. I strongly suspect that I won't be here to run a
free ESA something :(
Best regards, Odilon.
At 21:58 10/01/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I've found some interesting infos about the IBM withdrawal of S/370
>and S/390 software.
. . .
>Then, my question is: all the above software starting from the date
>above will be free as MVS 3.8j?
>If not, what's the difference? I see the withdrawal announcement for
>MVS 3.8j and it seems the same.
>
>regards and sorry if the question is stupid :-)
>
>Fausto
11:14 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
fausap72
Jan 10, 2002
Hello,
i agree with you... but I think, from IBM point of view, that if we
exchange (at the same manner of BCP of MVS 3.8j for example) MVS/XA
at no charge, we don't make anything against IBM because that old
version is not anymore sold or supported.
About availability, in the same manner of MVS 3.8j, IBM didn't make
available OS/VS2, as far I know there's no way to download it from an
IBM site, maybe order some product, but I don't know.
In this case the only availability is from users that, when the sw is
withdrawn from market (if my translation of "withdrawn" is correct)
CAN put as freely available.
I think that from IBM there's no other announcement for MVS 3.8 than
the "famous" announcement that we have in the bookmarks section of
H390-MVS mailing list on yahoo. There's no announcement about "public
domain software" and so on... or am I wrong?
regards,
fausto
--- In hercules-390@y..., Odilon Mader <odilon@l...> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm not any kind of authority in this matter, but from my knowledge
these
> are marketing and/or support withdrawals. Simply put they are
saying
> they'll no longer sell and/or support this stuff.
> Free (or not) availability has to do with the license under which
the
> software was originally released.
> Anyway, everything will someday get into public domain. The trouble
is that
> (at least here in Brazil) it takes 50 (fifty) years to any
intellectual
> property be public domain. I strongly suspect that I won't be here
to run a
> free ESA something :(
>
> Best regards, Odilon.
>
> At 21:58 10/01/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >I've found some interesting infos about the IBM withdrawal of S/370
> >and S/390 software.
>
> . . .
>
> >Then, my question is: all the above software starting from the date
> >above will be free as MVS 3.8j?
> >If not, what's the difference? I see the withdrawal announcement
for
> >MVS 3.8j and it seems the same.
> >
> >regards and sorry if the question is stupid :-)
> >
> >Fausto
11:19 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
halfmeg
Jan 11, 2002
--- In hercules-390@y..., "fausap72" <fausap@u...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i agree with you... but I think, from IBM point of view, that if we
> exchange (at the same manner of BCP of MVS 3.8j for example) MVS/XA
> at no charge, we don't make anything against IBM because that old
> version is not anymore sold or supported.
>
> About availability, in the same manner of MVS 3.8j, IBM didn't make
> available OS/VS2, as far I know there's no way to download it from
> an IBM site, maybe order some product, but I don't know.
Hi guy,
IBM never charged for MVS 3.8J, they did charge for almost everything
else after this version. We inquired about the ISPF version which
runs on MVS 3.8J, which was wild on the net at one time, their reply
to one of the group was to the effect, if you use a licensed product
we want a monthly fee for usage. This for a 1979 product which is
run under TSO not TSO/E like today.
As to whether we can exchange other versions of software, ie MVS/XA,
OS/390 1.3, etc. IBM holds copyright to these items, they always
charged a fee either monthly license or one time Entry Server
License, (read big bucks here, $250,000 US for OS/390 BASE no extras,
8 MIPS or less). Why would IBM sit by while their intellectual
property, which was never sold, only licensed, not wish to gather
fees for usage whether support is provided or not? After all, they
are not a non-profit organization and revenue is still revenue even
for old products.
Yes, IBM did have OS/VS2 (MVS 3.8J) available until March of 2001, I
am one of the few who did order and recieve tapes which contain the
software. Those of use who hold a license may also request a feature
to be unarchived for a replacement copy if necessary. I am not sure
if you can obtain a license for MVS 3.8J currently or not, withdrawn
status may prevent it.
I would love to have a copy of the ADCDs for z/VM & z/OS or even the
DEMOPKG someone recently posted about, but IBM says not without
buying a MP3000 (big bucks again) or PartnerWorld for Developers
ThinkPad with Flex/EFS (about $13,000, but software is loaned and
product must be developed and promoted in IBM Solutions Catalog in 12
months time, 2nd year think you have to have 2 products, usage is for
development only, even then you still don't have a license only a
loan).
Phil - Blue, Blue, Blue, had to take the 21" monitor apart since last
post - like I said strange things going on here
1:00 am
Re: IBM withdrawal
Odilon Mader
Jan 11, 2002
Hello
Yes. What I meant is that I see two separate things: one being how the
product is licensed and the other whether it's still available from IBM.
The license deals with the right to distribute it (wherever it may come
from) and in my opinion isn't related to the availability from IBM itself.
I've been thinking about 'public domain':
I got to know that recent laws here in Brazil provide that intellectual
properties become public domain after 50 years. I understood that any
copyright would expire and the product should be freely distributable. But
I'm not a lawyer and may got it wrong.
About 10 years ago, surely before these laws, I saw a computer running what
the customer declared to be a VM/SP Rel 2 (two!?) that was 'public domain
software'. That computer was built upon Nixdorf technology and marketed
here by a company named Labo. Maybe the software was not really public
domain and Nixdorf had a license for it, with rights to grant sub-licenses
to Labo.
Does anyone, specially in Germany, know something about this?
Best regards, Odilon.
At 01:00 11/01/2002 +0000, halfmeg wrote:
>--- In hercules-390@y..., "fausap72" <fausap@u...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > i agree with you... but I think, from IBM point of view, that if we
> > exchange (at the same manner of BCP of MVS 3.8j for example) MVS/XA
> > at no charge, we don't make anything against IBM because that old
> > version is not anymore sold or supported.
> >
> > About availability, in the same manner of MVS 3.8j, IBM didn't make
> > available OS/VS2, as far I know there's no way to download it from
> > an IBM site, maybe order some product, but I don't know.
>
>Hi guy,
>
>IBM never charged for MVS 3.8J, they did charge for almost everything
>else after this version. We inquired about the ISPF version which
>runs on MVS 3.8J, which was wild on the net at one time, their reply
>to one of the group was to the effect, if you use a licensed product
>we want a monthly fee for usage. This for a 1979 product which is
>run under TSO not TSO/E like today.
. . .
7:15 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
fausap72
Jan 11, 2002
Hello,
sorry for my english, but for this reason I cannot, sometimes, explain
very well my opinions.
What I want to tell is this:
Why I cannot redistribute a licensed product of another Company?
Because in this case I'm causing a loss of dollars to the Company,
because the Company sells this product.
I think this is ok...
When a Company decides to not sell anymore the product (and do not
support it) and sells a upgraded version of that product, if I
distribute freely the previous version, am i causing to the company a
loss of profit?
Warning... when I write "freely" I mean that the use of that product
is for non commercial reason.
Now how can I request a license for an old version of a product, if
it's not anymore sold?
In this case I think there's no need of a license... but I'm not a
lawyer...
I'm not talking about copyright... the copyright remains to IBM, as
for MVS 3.8j, it's only a licensing problem, in my opinion.
regards,
fausto
--- In hercules-390@y..., Odilon Mader <odilon@l...> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Yes. What I meant is that I see two separate things: one being how the
> product is licensed and the other whether it's still available from
IBM.
> The license deals with the right to distribute it (wherever it may come
> from) and in my opinion isn't related to the availability from IBM
itself.
>
> I've been thinking about 'public domain':
>
> I got to know that recent laws here in Brazil provide that intellectual
> properties become public domain after 50 years. I understood that any
> copyright would expire and the product should be freely
distributable. But
> I'm not a lawyer and may got it wrong.
>
> About 10 years ago, surely before these laws, I saw a computer
running what
> the customer declared to be a VM/SP Rel 2 (two!?) that was 'public
domain
> software'. That computer was built upon Nixdorf technology and marketed
> here by a company named Labo. Maybe the software was not really public
> domain and Nixdorf had a license for it, with rights to grant
sub-licenses
> to Labo.
>
> Does anyone, specially in Germany, know something about this?
>
> Best regards, Odilon.
>
> At 01:00 11/01/2002 +0000, halfmeg wrote:
> >--- In hercules-390@y..., "fausap72" <fausap@u...> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > i agree with you... but I think, from IBM point of view, that if we
> > > exchange (at the same manner of BCP of MVS 3.8j for example) MVS/XA
> > > at no charge, we don't make anything against IBM because that old
> > > version is not anymore sold or supported.
> > >
> > > About availability, in the same manner of MVS 3.8j, IBM didn't make
> > > available OS/VS2, as far I know there's no way to download it from
> > > an IBM site, maybe order some product, but I don't know.
> >
> >Hi guy,
> >
> >IBM never charged for MVS 3.8J, they did charge for almost everything
> >else after this version. We inquired about the ISPF version which
> >runs on MVS 3.8J, which was wild on the net at one time, their reply
> >to one of the group was to the effect, if you use a licensed product
> >we want a monthly fee for usage. This for a 1979 product which is
> >run under TSO not TSO/E like today.
>
> . . .
7:14 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
halfmeg
Jan 11, 2002
--- In hercules-390@y..., "fausap72" <fausap@u...> wrote:
>snip<
> When a Company decides to not sell anymore the product (and do not
> support it) and sells a upgraded version of that product, if I
> distribute freely the previous version, am i causing to the company
> a loss of profit?
>
> Warning... when I write "freely" I mean that the use of that product
> is for non commercial reason.
Let us presume that I own some land with several fields on it. In
the past I have given permission for someone to work with a certain
field in return for rental fees, part of the crop, etc. In other
words I received something for letting you work the land. Now
suppose I no longer want to deal with noise, chemicals, workers,
whatever was taking place on that particular field and wish it to go
fallow. I in turn have another field which is perhaps better in some
regards and maybe needs someone with more powerful equipment to make
use of the land. It is available for a slightly higher fee/rental.
Is someone supposing to tell me that because I don't wish to use the
old field, land which I still own, that they should be able to work
it and harvest a crop from it just because I allowed that activity in
the past. By what right would someone be able to do that legally?
It would be trespassing, illegal.
I think I remember a story about a Roman who got tired of one of the
outlying cities/states attempting to become more than Rome desired.
If I remember correctly the Romans tilled salt into the ground so
that the fields would not grow anything for anyone.
Phil - wishing for a salubrious rain for us all
10:12 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
fausap72
Jan 11, 2002
Hello,
i read carefully your argument, but I don't understand very well...
according your opinion if IBM tells us that it DOESN'T want that we
use MVS 3.8 we MUST stop to use it?
All of us are potentially illegal people, depending on the IBM
decision... :-)
IBM has the copyright of MVS 3.8 as the person that own the land...
IBM owns the software.
I think this is not the correct point of view in this case.
It's good for a land, but not for the software...
regards,
fausto
PS
At this point I'll write to IBM and I'll ask... :-)
--- In hercules-390@y..., "halfmeg" <opplr@h...> wrote:
> --- In hercules-390@y..., "fausap72" <fausap@u...> wrote:
> >snip<
> > When a Company decides to not sell anymore the product (and do not
> > support it) and sells a upgraded version of that product, if I
> > distribute freely the previous version, am i causing to the
company
> > a loss of profit?
> >
> > Warning... when I write "freely" I mean that the use of that
product
> > is for non commercial reason.
>
> Let us presume that I own some land with several fields on it. In
> the past I have given permission for someone to work with a certain
> field in return for rental fees, part of the crop, etc. In other
> words I received something for letting you work the land. Now
> suppose I no longer want to deal with noise, chemicals, workers,
> whatever was taking place on that particular field and wish it to
go
> fallow. I in turn have another field which is perhaps better in
some
> regards and maybe needs someone with more powerful equipment to
make
> use of the land. It is available for a slightly higher fee/rental.
>
> Is someone supposing to tell me that because I don't wish to use
the
> old field, land which I still own, that they should be able to work
> it and harvest a crop from it just because I allowed that activity
in
> the past. By what right would someone be able to do that legally?
> It would be trespassing, illegal.
>
> I think I remember a story about a Roman who got tired of one of
the
> outlying cities/states attempting to become more than Rome
desired.
> If I remember correctly the Romans tilled salt into the ground so
> that the fields would not grow anything for anyone.
>
> Phil - wishing for a salubrious rain for us all
10:40 pm
Re: IBM withdrawal
Jay Maynard
Jan 11, 2002
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 10:40:03PM -0000, fausap72 wrote:
> i read carefully your argument, but I don't understand very well...
> according your opinion if IBM tells us that it DOESN'T want that we
> use MVS 3.8 we MUST stop to use it?
No...the difference is that MVS 3.8 is not copyrighted at all, while MVS/XA
is. IBM cannot stop us (or anyone else) from distributing MVS 3.8.
> IBM has the copyright of MVS 3.8 as the person that own the land...
> IBM owns the software.
No. MVS 3.8 is in the public domain. I got that straight from IBM's
intellectual property lawyers.
IBM still owns the copyright on MVS/XA. They can legally stop others from
copying it.
11:18 pm
Copyright 2002