You think, Michael, the same as I used to think. But I'm informed that the
changes to rhel open-sourcing of rh's secret sauce are legal under the gpl and,
thus, changes to the gcc compiler do not have to be made freely available
either.
I don't claim to understand this.
Best wishes / Mejores deseos / Meilleurs vœux
Ian ...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:01:59 PM GMT+2, Schmitt, Michael
<michael.schm...@dxc.com> wrote:
I Am Not A GPL Expert but...
My understanding is...
* A company can create closed source products using the GCC toolchain
* A company can make changes to the GCC toolchain, and then use it to create
closed source products (but maybe this is different in GPL3)
But
* If you sold a compiler that was derived from GCC source now your product is
open source and you must make the source available
* Same if you found some cool logic in the GCC source and incorporated that
source code into your source.
So if IBM is changing GCC and the improved GCC in RHEL as closed source, that's
bad. But if IBM is changing GCC and using it to compile other things, that's OK.
I think.
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> On Behalf
Of Ian Worthington
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 2:35 PM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Will z/OS be obsolete in 5 years?
That's what I had though, but apparently it's not correct. In fact, for many
years IBM has withheld its own changes to GCC for private sale to its own
customers, apparently quite legally.
(Caveat: The absence of any yacht clearly indicates I am not a lawyer. Nor do
I play one on TV.)
Best wishes / Mejores deseos / Meilleurs vœux
Ian ...
On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 07:43:38 PM GMT+2, Tom Marchant
<000000a69b48f3bb-dmarc-requ...@listserv.uga.edu> wrote:
The terms of the GNU General Purpose License do not allow the source to be
restricted in any way. The Linux kernel is licensed under GPL v2
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
AFAIK, most of the rest of the GNU operating system (colloquially known as
"Linux", although Linux is actually just the kernel) is licensed under GPL v3
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
--
Tom Marchant
On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 07:03:05 +0000, Ian Worthington wrote:
>Is this correct? My understanding is that the source is still available but
>now only to customers in order to prevent downstream suppliers from using rhel
>as their base.
>Of course I've slept since I saw this discussion so caveat emptor...
>
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 02:47:32 AM GMT+2, Jon Perryman
><jperr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> IBM RHEL announced it's move to closed source (IBM RedHat Enterprise Linux).
>> With some changes, DB2, RACF and other z/OS products could run in Linux on
>> z16 in one sysplexed Linux image. We know it's possible because IBM moved
>> Unix and TCP into z/OS. IBM RHEL said closed source would force non-paying
>> customers to buy RHEL licenses but this makes no sense. Something else must
>> be in play.
>>I created a survey at https://forms.gle/ZTPXsDJo8Z4H93sv7 to gain insights
>>into IBM's decision to close source RHEL. You can skip the survey if you
>>don't want to take it and view the survey results through this website. Feel
>>free to pass this along.
>> I think IBM wants to integrate z/OS products to retain their investments and
>> expand their customer base..
>>Why is the z/OS community ignoring IBM RHEL closed source? Are software
>>vendors preparing their products for Linux?
