A few things stated in the attached posting may really cause heartburn and a form of legal colitis (or some such) if it can be demonstrated that Hercules and/or PSI's technologies are (or may reasonably be) based on Linux or z/Linux code provided by IBM (again, I've not had the time to peruse the motions/petitions to see if this little gem is referred to):
>From the thread: Open z architecture and Linux questions -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Post Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:57 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: Open z architecture and Linux questions >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kirk Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -snip- > AFAIK: > 1) Linux for system z is still able to run on raw LPARs, without z/VM Correct. On machines that support it, it will also run in basic mode. (IBM can't test that any longer, but they used to. So, it could have happened that something crept in that would prevent it.) > 2) IBM contributes kernel patches and tool chain code to support the z > instruction set, under the GPL Also correct. > So: > Q1) Are any closed/proprietary instructions and hardware interfaces used? There have been a number of these, with most of them subsequently "opened" via source code drivers: QDIO, HiperSockets, 3590 tapes, etc. I don't know if Diagnose commands fall into this category or not, but a number of them are used in the kernel, not necessarily with any documentation. > If so, does contribution of code under the GPL that "links" to > closed/proprietary interfaces imply anything? That depends on who you ask. In some cases, the fact that a bit of code exists elsewhere, and is also used as a Linux kernel module in binary-only form is used to grant an exception to a vendor. The thought being, that if that code was created _only_ to run as a Linux kernel module, then it is some sort of derivative work, and therefore should be GPL code. As you might guess, this is a very complex area that gives rise to any number of arguments/debates/flame wars. > Q2) Might we expect that eventually Linux on system z will require > z/VM, so that "platform enablement" (for the kernel and device > drivers) can be moved into "closed" DIAG instructions so that IBM can further protect its IP? > Would that be accepted to the Linux kernel folks? It might be completely acceptable to Linus and company, but would not be to the general customer base, unless and until z/VM comes with every IBM mainframe purchase. Understand, I am a big advocate of running Linux on z/VM, but I am also in favor of customer choice. I don't want my options limited if it can be avoided. <SNIP> Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
