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

--- In hercules-advocacy-F5Bj5G+ccuY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "commanonce" 
<philp@xxxx> wrote:
> "IBM has taken a business decision not to license its commercial 
> software on this platform."
> 
> A model of clarity, though I daresay Fish will find some way to 
> misread it.

snip...

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).

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.

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?

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'?

Mike



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