Re: Peter still in misery (was: Jan doesn't want Peter to know (was: Peter wants

pdw> Well, thats a position which makes any factual discussion 
impossible ...
pdw> perhaps that's the whole point ....

You seem to handle double standards here.  You always raise the 
issue of patents.
You have been asked to name the patents that you have licensed as 
you claim the 
same would apply to hercules.  So far you have never ever reponded, 
yet when you
ask a question, and you do not like the aswer you reply with lines 
along the 
quoted lines above.


pdw> I can't tell from your comment which faction, IBM hardware or 
software,
pdw> you are asserting is fond of Hercules. Is it your estimation 
that the
pdw> software people, the ones that refuse to commercially license 
their
pdw> product to Hercules, the ones that refuse to allow developers 
to use their
pdw> software on Hercules, are the fond ones, or perhaps you mean 
its the
pdw> hardware folks?

pdw> So are you saying IBM presently generally licenses its software 
stack for
pdw> use on Hercules? Can you share a phone number that one can call 
to get a
pdw> commecial or developer license to IBM software for use on 
Hercules? Or
pdw> are you saying that IBM will do so once someone starts some 
administrative
pdw> or legal action against their present position?
pdw> hardware folks?

As far as I know, in the worst case hercules would fall into the 
highest 
processor group, as it is undefined. (We have discussed this before)


It would be nice to see IBM provide a hobbyist license 


pdw> Its not a matter of my liking, its a matter of what is true. Do 
you
pdw> consider modern VM source code "public accessible information"?

It is not the document I have here (which does not require a vm 
license), 
but the source you mention does seem to appear your description of 
publically available.  fwiw, the sie block has been documented in 
the 
source you mention for 2 decades.


pdw> Do you have a position on whether or not Hercules development 
even has to
pdw> be concerned about patent claims?

Not unless a patent owner raises the issue.

As I found out recently, I might have been violating IBM patents 
when I was
waiting for a lavatory that was in use.  I have never seen people on 
an airoplane 
calling the ibm director of licensing making sure that were lining 
up in a way
that ibm concurred with, have you?


pdw> I'm not sure we are. Do you consider documents associated with
pdw> early release or developer's programs "regular channels"?

no, unless it is published open source



pdw> Did you mention that document when you posted your list of 
documents
pdw> which purported to prove z/SIE was publically documented?

no, it is the "Where Jan get the z/SIE block" document


pdw> What point are you trying to make in the immediately above 
exchange?


The point that I am trying to make is that your behaviour, both in 
the 
past and at present, has the potential to backfire on yourself and 
the
company you work for.  I do not think I need to say more.


First, you claim that the sie block is undisclosed and somehow 
leaked to 
hercules developers.
Now you quote a more or less public source of the sie block, one 
that is 
20 years old and which has always been kept up to date. 
(64 bit updates within the past couple of years)

I do not buy this contradiction,

You are either spreading fud, or you are have inside knowledge of 
people
that are purposely misusing confidential information as discussed in 
previous post.  I do not believe it is nessecary to go into that 
right now, do you?


Jan Jaeger 



Re: [hercules-advocacy] Re: Jan doesn't want Peter to know (was: 
Peter wants to know (was: Where did Jan get z/SIE block 
documentation?))


 
Sat Oct 19, 2002  6:13 pm
pdw> pa3efu wrote:

pdw> jj> I am not being evasive, I just happened to have decided not 
to give
pdw> jj> you
pdw> jj> anymore information then that I see fit.

pdw> To what end?

My discretion 

> I am sure that if ibm considered the z/sie block (aka state
> desciptor) confidential
> information, they would investigate as to where it came from.

pdw> OK, lets approach this differently -- what is your opinion as 
to why IBM
pdw> seemingly refuses to
pdw> license its software stack on Hercules? (I know you believe 
there are
pdw> confidential instances of this happening,
pdw> so if you wish you can substitute "generally" for "seemingly") 
[and
pdw> please, no assertions we've bullied
pdw> them into it -- it doesn't ring well with your other assertions]

The whole world is still surprised about IBM's sudden engagement 
with Linux, 
it is fair to say that hercules goes more than one step further.
I know that there are some people within ibm that have reservations 
wrt hercules,
there are also those who are quite fond of hercules.  I would 
estimate that 
this division is along the lines of hardware vs software people.

I do not think IBM can legally exclude certain software combinations 
nor would even try.
(Analogous to bill gates preventing netscape to run under windows)

Quite frankly, I do not think that you have enough cloud to bully 
ibm into anything


> This
> has not happened
> simply because the information is not confidential (unless someone
> has made a mistake
> in publishing this).

pdw> It could be published without restrictions, I've said so much 
as that,
pdw> but I haven't see it, and while you readily throw manual 
numbers out
pdw> claiming z/SIE is documented, you don't provide in those (as 
far as I
pdw> can tell) a source which completes such documentation. z/SIE 
block is
pdw> one seemingly missing element from the sources you've previously
pdw> identified.

One of my concerns is that when clear this with you, you will find 
something 
else which is not to your liking.
When the European government was so kind to sponsor hercules 
developers to a 
workshop here in europe, we decided not to include any proprietary 
items.  
All hercules source code is currently derived from public accessible 
information.  
Hercules as an open source effort has really benefited from this 
workshop.


> All IBM would need to do is drop me an email requesting the
> information,
> this has not happened yet, probably be cause they know that the
> z/sie block
> info is publically available.

pdw> Has IBM management ever written you about any of their 
proprietary
pdw> concerns? If not, does
pdw> that suggest to you that they don't have any?

IBM has never written to me about any of their proprietary 
concerns.  I have heard
rumors of some concerns, but have never seen any in writing, nor 
have I ever spoken 
to any of those who you say are concerned.

I think it is an objective assessment that ibm is not concerned to 
the extend where
they would actually write to me about it.


> I would estimate that they find this entire discussion a bit of a
> joke. (as do I)

pdw> Perhaps they can't control
pdw> their laughter long enough to be able to offer a license.

At least they are having fun


> Just expain the footnote (discaimer) on the fsi home page regarding
> z/arch support.

pdw> How about a trade of info? You point to an unrestricted source 
for the
pdw> z/SIE block documentation and I'll answer your question above. 
(I think
pdw> you are referring to "licensing terms may apply" as the 
footnote in
pdw> question, correct?)

You are really keen aren't you?


> I believe that there is also some confusion under your customers
> regarding
> the z/arch support that you claim to offer.

pdw> What confusion is that? Ask Volker to order an update next week 
after
pdw> GA, he'll get his copy.

I am honored that you announce this first on a hercules list, 
whereas people
on the flex-es list still have to be informed (at the time of 
writing this)


pdw> Well, you seem to be toying with me, and either believe z/SIE 
is well
pdw> documented in documents that are not incumbered by any IP 
restrictions,
pdw> or you
pdw> are being evasive. I can't tell which, and I doubt anyone else 
can
pdw> either.

I think that you are slowly starting to get the idea.


pdw> One doesn't need to be a lawyer to agree to reasonable 
definitions.
pdw> Lets perhaps use this one -- If they are not restricted 
materials in
pdw> that they are not originally provided under some license which
pdw> predicates their use (other than the usual copyright) then 
we'll call
pdw> that a general ibm documentation. Another practical way perhaps 
to
pdw> square this is if one can order and receive the document 
through IBM's
pdw> online ordering arm at IBMlink without having to sign any 
restricted
pdw> materials license. What do you think of either of these? I 
favor the
pdw> 2nd one.

Let us keep it at obtain from ibm, through regular channels, without 
having to 
sign any license, or pay any abnormal fees. 
We are thinking along the same lines here.

I have the document right here in front of me, and the above most 
certainly applies,
just one general copyright notice, not even a reference to a patent 
(sorry).


> However if you feel that confidential information has been leaked
> from fsi to
> the hercules developers, then I am quite happy to investigate this
> for you.

pdw> Thanks for the offer, but I do not believe that to be the case.

I can well understand that you want to keep these sensitive matters 
within your own hands.


jj




 
=========================
Sat Oct 19, 2002  3:51 pm
Wow, 3 replies within the space of one hour!


------------------------------- 
pdw> Fri Oct 18, 2002  11:24 pm
pdw> Regarding the z/SIE block documentation pa3efu wrote:

pdw> No, the easy way is to arrange in advance for the right to use 
someone
pdw> else's IP.
pdw> The hard way is to use it anyway and then fashion cryptic 
messages to
pdw> appear responsive when in reality being evasive about where one 
got
pdw> information.

I am not being evasive, I just happened to have decided not to give 
you 
anymore information then that I see fit.

pdw> I'm perfectly willing to believe that there may be a public 
source for
pdw> z/SIE block info -- you need only point it out. (No hurry, take 
all
pdw> weekend to type up your one line reference info)

You are right, that is about all it needs, but you have not quite 
convinced 
me yet to do so.

pdw> IBM seemingly refuses to license z/VM on Hercules. My sense is 
that at
pdw> least some of the reluctance on IBM's part is because Hercules
pdw> incorporates restricted IBM IP without permission. Here is Jan's
pdw> chance to prove them mistaken at least so far as z/SIE 
documentation is
pdw> concerned. Perhaps by backing up his claim that the z/SIE block 
is
pdw> publically documented he can dispell any erroneous beliefs 
within IBM.
pdw> (IBM probably reads this list too) Instead, one is left to 
consider
pdw> all the words he has typed in NOT answering this question. (IBM
pdw> probably reads this list too)

I am sure that if ibm considered the z/sie block (aka state 
desciptor) confidential 
information, they would investigate as to where it came from. This 
has not happened
simply because the information is not confidential (unless someone 
has made a mistake 
in publishing this).  

All IBM would need to do is drop me an email requesting the 
information,
this has not happened yet, probably be cause they know that the 
z/sie block
info is publically available.

I would estimate that they find this entire discussion a bit of a 
joke. (as do I)


 
 

------------------------------
pdw> Sat Oct 19, 2002  12:05 am
pdw> pa3efu wrote:

pdw> I believe GA of Flex 6.2 (z/Arch version) is scheduled for next 
week, so
pdw> I'm not sure I understand what signals you are talking about. 
I'm all
pdw> ears however if you care to say more .....

Just expain the footnote (discaimer) on the fsi home page regarding 
z/arch support.

I believe that there is also some confusion under your customers 
regarding
the z/arch support that you claim to offer.

pdw> The availabilty of z/SIE block documents publically would not 
alter our
pdw> fiscal arrangement with IBM, so there is no reason for you to 
assert
pdw> "most certainly" otherwise, except perhaps as an oblique 
attempt to
pdw> justify not answering the question about where you obtained 
z/SIE block
pdw> documentation.

We seem to go round in circles here




-------------------------------
pdw> Sat Oct 19, 2002  12:11 am
pdw> Oh, I believe that too, but what you didn't say was that 
Hercules was
pdw> developed using *ONLY* openly available information.

pdw> And just so we are all level set, could you perhaps define what 
you mean
pdw> by "openly available information"? It may be that we have a 
simple
pdw> misunderstanding of what documents and sources 
constitute "publically
pdw> available".

I am not a lawyer, how do you qualify general ibm documentation?


However if you feel that confidential information has been leaked 
from fsi to 
the hercules developers, then I am quite happy to investigate this 
for you.



jj




 

-------------------------
Fri Oct 18, 2002  6:45 pm
Hi Peter,

pdw> Thu Oct 17, 2002  3:27 am
pdw> JJ, given your claim that its publically available, would you
pdw> have any objection to saying exactly where it is publically 
available?

That would be the easy way out


pdw> Thu Oct 17, 2002  10:53 pm
pdw> no response as of yet

It appears that there is some urgency to this matter.  I am getting 
quite 
a few signals that fsi feels that they are being sqeezed too far by 
ibm
in the negotiations on the T&c'S of flex 64 bit support.  It would 
be nice
for fsi to have all this information at hand, it will most certainly 
lower
some of the costs.


pdw> The greater question is whether or not Jan maintains that he 
used only
pdw> openly available (ie, non-proprietary) info in his Herc 
development
pdw> work. z/SIE could be one example where this may be demonstrated.

I certainly believe that hercules was developed using openly 
available information.

If I am wrong however, then someone who has confidential access to 
this 
type of information would have 'leak' this to the hercules 
developers.
To what purpose? There would have to be a motive, financial gain for 
one.
As hercules is free open source there is no money involved, so 
others would
have to benefit by leaking information to hercules developers.

Only those who are involved in commercially developing this type of 
technology 
may benefit from such a leak.  When this information is purposely 
leaked to 
hercules developers, then the value of that information would be 
reduced.


Have a nice weekend

jj



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/dpFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/