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

> I'm curious. I understand from earlier posts that this is alleged 
to 
> have been a written reply from IBM to someone seeking a license to 
> run an IBM OS on Herc. Is this true? Have you actually seen the 
> letter? Just wanting to tie-down how accurate this quote is, and 
> where it originated (without necessarily naming names of course).

It was quoted to me in email.  I then took steps to verify it.  I 
don't have it on IBM letterhead, but I'm convinced that it has been 
used more than once.
 
> The issue which would then arise is how the open-source movement 
> should respond to IBM insisting that only a proprietary, closed-
> source platform is elegible for OS licensing - that the open-source 
> alternative is to be deliberately shut out of the market.

That isn't what IBM said.  If they had said: "IBM has taken a 
business decision not to license its commercial software on an open 
source emulator" then you might have a point.  There are other very 
cogent and relevant reasons why a business might not want to 
associate itself with the Hercules effort.  _An_ open source emulator 
has been shut out - but not _every_ open source emulator.

(I don't see how it would be possible to avoid at least some OCO in 
an emulator that IBM would find aceptable, though.)
 
> The other issue is, to cast it in different terms, is this strictly 
> legal? What would the outcome have been if IBM had refused to 
license 
> MVS on, say, Amdahl, or any of the other PCM manufacturers?

That was back when there was a Consent Decree and/or an EU 
Undertaking in force.  The present absence of such legal protection 
was one factor (not the main one) in both Hitachi's and Amdahl's 
decisions to leave the industry. 

> In the days of the Chicago-OS/2 wars (you were there Phil?), what 
> view would the DOJ be taking now if MS had 'taken a business 
decision 
> not to license Windows on IBM PCs'?

Well, let's make the parallel more exact.

IBM doesn't refer to machines at all - except in the case of the 
Partnerworld system which mandates an _IBM_ Laptop.  But there is no 
restriction on licensing (e.g.) z/OS by hardware manufacturer - most 
of Fundamental's partners are currently using IBM xSeries, but I'm 
not aware of anything that requires this.  A lot of older systems 
were Dell & Compaq.

A much better parallel from the Chicago-OS2 struggle would be 
Microsoft's refusal to license Win32 on the OS2 platform irrespective 
of hardware - which they in fact did.


------------------------ 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/