Re: Why are the FUD spreaders spreading FUD?

--- In hercules-advocacy-F5Bj5G+ccuY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "pa3efu" <jj@xxxx> wrote:
> I am aware of several cases where there is a written agreement on 
> the use of licenced software on hercules.  These agreements are 
> private and/or confidential as most special arrangements usually 
are.
> There is no benefit in publishing special arrangements as these do 
> not apply to the public in general.
> The bottom line is that it is possible to use licenced software 
> legitimately on hercules, however it must be said that it is 
> more than trivial to get such an agreement.

Interesting. I appreciate considerations of confidentiality may 
prevent you enlarging on this, however I'd be interested to know more 
about the nature of these agreements, if you can provide such 
information without giving too much away. Do the agreements cover:

- Hercules specifically?
- A class of platform (eg 'anything below 60 mips'; 'any emulator')?
- Any platform, but purpose-specific (for demonstration only)?

I feel certain there *must* be more licensing options available than 
are widely-known. In fact, I've challenged Phil Payne on this before, 
and I'll challenge him (or anyone else) again: I've heard the 
acronyms bandied about (GOLC, MLC, ESL, all the rest)... Phil you 
speak this language, I don't; I can't believe there isn't a 
relatively cheap license out there for demonstration purposes... 

Consider Rogers SNACONS product - let's assume it doesn't sell very 
well, beer money really... how does he demonstrate it to a potential 
customer? It doesn't qualify for PWD, it doesn't justify a high-
priced license... what class of license does IBM suggest using for a 
situation where there is no other purpose for OS/390 than 
occasionally demonstrating or testing some other product? It isn't 
development (PWD), it sure as hell isn't production, and doesn't 
justify the $40k figure we hear bandied about as the cheapest 
license... 1/100th of that may be closer... if IBM doesn't have such 
a license, perhaps they should...

*This* may be a better line of attack to use with IBM than the 
concept of a 'hobbyist' license, which I suspect causes shutters to 
be closed in the eyes of some of the less imaginative IBMers.

Mike