2009/11/18 Timothy Sipples <[email protected]>: >>That's why I was asking. I don't want to take a chance >>of violating our license. But, what is the difference >>between actually copying the file from z/OS to my Linux >>desktop, for the purpose of compilation, versus making >>the jar files available via NFS exports on the z/OS >>system to the Linux system? > > We can leave "z/OS" out of this discussion, because it isn't germane. > Insert (machine-licensed) "Oracle Database," for example, and it'll be the > same answer. Software which is licensed to a particular machine is for that > machine. If you want to run it on another machine, you need a license for > that machine. (With narrow exceptions if they're permitted in the license > agreement, such as disaster recovery. There is certain permitted use of the > ISPF Workstation Agent, to pick another example.) > > The technical means of copying the file(s) don't matter. Floppy disk, NFS, > BitTorrent... doesn't matter. Whole product or one file... doesn't matter. > The license agreement doesn't permit you to do any of those things without > a license for the target machine. [...]
Well... This is certainly a can of worms. I think you are conflating running software on a machine it isn't licensed for, with using things like macros or include files that are incidental to executable software to compile on a machine not licensed to run the executable software for ultimate execution on the licensed machine. I really don't know that the status of the latter is well defined in the absence of a reference in the licence. If indeed the method of copying doesn't matter, then there is surely a problem with the many licence agreements that have nothing to say about how to get software from distribution medium to licensed execution platform. For example, much z/OS software comes on CD, but few z/OS platforms have a CD reader that is usable for this purpose, so in almost every case the software is copied from CD to a desktop machine (Windows, Linux), and then to z/OS. If the licence is silent on this point, and since it is well established that even such transient action is copying under the copyright statues, then there should be a problem. But there isn't, because everyone understands that this is the way you install such a package, and that it isn't going to be executed on the intermediate platform. Neither IBM nor CA nor anyone else sues their customers because they stored a z/OS software image on Windows while getting it to the licensed machine. One could well argue that similar reasoning would apply to the case of using include files and the like on one platform as input to a compiler/assembler targeting a platform licensed for execution. > If you're in doubt about permitted use, just ask the vendor first. I don't > speak for IBM, but in my experience at least IBM is quite reasonable when > handling such questions and situations. Fortunately I speak for no one but myself on this, and even more fortunately, I am not running any IBM software in such a manner, and so don't feel the need to ask IBM about it. But I think users of the several cross compilers and assemblers that target z/OS and System z with the expectation that IBM macros and include files must be used to produce any usable output, may want to ask if such usage requires special dispensation. Perhaps some have already done so, and can provide the answer here. Tony H. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
