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

> 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)

And you didn't listen even then:

"IBM's previous practice of placing software prices in the highest
Processor Group when it was running on a processor that was not 
included on the Processor Group Exhibit for GMLC software will be 
modified. Software running on processors that are not on the 
Processor Group Exhibit, or have no MSU ratings established for IMLC, 
will be charged the IMLC price for 200 MSUs.

Consistent with our current software support policy, IBM will provide
program support only for errors that can be reproduced in a supported
operating environment. Apart from IBM's Parallel Sysplex offerings,
there is no specified operating environment for processors larger than
80 MSUs."

Announcement Letter 395-045, back in 1995.  The position changed with 
the withdrawal of GMLC, IMLC and their ilk in 1998 (998-295) and 
there is now NO WAY to license a system that does not appear either 
on a schedule or on a valid GEN letter.

No matter how much money you offer.

I note however that there is currently an active RFA for licensing 
under emulation.




> 
> 
> 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/