Chase, John wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Tom Moulder
I'm sure that I don't know much about this topic.
Let me just ask then how it is that IBM can "ALLOW" z/OS to
run on a PSI machine. If PSI totally on its own writes
firmware loaded at IPL time to allow z/OS to run on an
Itanium 2 dual core processor, then why couldn't the customer
buy z/OS and run the software on the machine. Of course the
customer would be taking some risk because the support would
probably have to come from PSI primarily and not IBM. Seems
to me like in the Amdahl days each machine was assigned a
"Capacity ID" by IBM and that was used for pricing of
software. Have things changed? Am I way off base?
I guess my main question goes back to the word "ALLOW". How
can IBM have so much control?
IBM owns the software, "lock, stock and barrel". If you want to "drive"
it, you comply with IBM's Ts & Cs (Terms & Conditions).
It's sort of like driving my car: I grant you a "license" to drive my
car, but YOU (and nobody else) may drive it only from "here" to "there"
and back, and only on these specific roads, and only during that time of
day. If you find these Ts & Cs too restrictive, then drive somebody
else's car.
I think the car example is wrong.
If you sell apples (or cars) you cannot refuse someone, because he's
disable person, or she's a woman, or he wears short trousers, or he
already bought oranges in another shop. Software licenses are sold on
similar conditions. Your (seller's) terms & conditions cannot break
public law. IBM *had* to sell licenses on non-IBM machines in the past,
Amdahl, Hitachi to name a few. I'm pretty sure IBM was not happy of that.
--
Radoslaw Skorupka
Lodz, Poland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
