Natural for zOS
in [Cobol]
|
From: Non scrivetemi on 16 May 2010 10:04 Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > Given the discussions about running z/OS on Hercules and other > emulators that have occurred on bit.listserv.ibm-main, it is a highly > relevant question. IBM apparently is willing to license z/OS only on > z series hardware and has been vigorous in enforcing this much to the > distress of those who would like developer or hobbyist licenses to run > under emulation. There are rumors of IBM employees running z/OS on > Hercules and the whole issue is generating much discussion > periodically. No, it's not relevant unless you're an IBM shareholder or have some other interest in IBM's stranglehold on the marketplace. In the ten year history of Hercules, IBM has not brought any legal action whatsoever against anyone running a copy of any of its operating systems, whether licensed or not, on Hercules. There is "no vigorous enforcement". All there is, is threats and bullying. Yes, we know IBM does not permit you to run software you licensed on any hardware except IBM hardware. This is probably illegal but hasn't been challenged in court. But they haven't tried to enforce it, ever.
From: Anonymous on 16 May 2010 20:50 In article <85a74gFgbrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <857mn2FtgpU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <4H3ZLJJ640312.889837963(a)reece.net.au>, >>>> Kulin Remailer <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: >>>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I've a zOS+Hercules setup installed in my notebook but I want >>>>>>> install natural (softwareag) too. Do you know where can I find >>>>>>> the disks? >>>>>> >>>>>> How did you do this legally? >>>>> >>>>> It's pathetic to see how many people work for the government. Are >>>>> they paying you to enforce contracts you haven't even read, or do >>>>> you just have too much spare time? >>>> >>>> It might be reasonably concluded that the abovegiven answer readily >>>> translates to 'I did not do this legally'. >>> >>> Maybe. >> >> It might be reasonably concluded that the abogiven answer ('maybe') >> readily translates into a variation of 'Yes, it might be'. > >Sure. But "maybe" admits the possibility of "No, it doesn't." also. Gosh and golly gee, Mr Dashwood... you mean that all these years of seeing that word employed that particular possiblility was kept concealed from me? Thank you, thank you, how could I *ever* thank you sufficiently for having revealed such a hitherto-undiscovered subeletly? [snip] >> It seems to me that to ask a group which contains members who earn >> their bread and butter by writing software 'How can I do something >> which appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?' is not >> indicative of an action which would be the result of the sharpest >> bulb in the chandelier... errrr, the brightest knife in the >> elevator... errrr, a drawer which goes all the way to the top... >> errrrr, some manner of trite-and-truism. > >The translation of what was posted, into 'How can I do something which >appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?', is a considerable >stretch. Calling a stretch 'considerable' is more a statement of the one doing the exercise than of the exercise its'self... after all, for some it might have been so considerable a stretch to consider that the indefinite condition of 'maybe' could include both positive *and* negative possibilities and that an explication of this was worth the electrons to transmit it. DD
From: Richard on 16 May 2010 22:39 On May 17, 12:35 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > docdw...(a)panix.com wrote: > > In article <857mn2Ftg...(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Pete Dashwood <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> docdw...(a)panix.com wrote: > >>> In article <4H3ZLJJ640312.889837...(a)reece.net.au>, > >>> Kulin Remailer <remai...(a)reece.net.au> wrote: > >>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpub...(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > > >>>>>> I've a zOS+Hercules setup installed in my notebook but I want > >>>>>> install natural (softwareag) too. Do you know where can I find > >>>>>> the disks? > > >>>>> How did you do this legally? > > >>>> It's pathetic to see how many people work for the government. Are > >>>> they paying you to enforce contracts you haven't even read, or do > >>>> you just have too much spare time? > > >>> It might be reasonably concluded that the abovegiven answer readily > >>> translates to 'I did not do this legally'. > > >> Maybe. > > > It might be reasonably concluded that the abogiven answer ('maybe') > > readily translates into a variation of 'Yes, it might be'. > > Sure. But "maybe" admits the possibility of "No, it doesn't." also. > > > > > Next week - call-forwarding strategies designed specifically for the > > desks in the Department of Reduncancy Department. > > > (Firesign Theatre reference.) > > >> Or maybe he's just irritated at the question being asked. > > >> I'm not sure if it is relevant whether he did it legally or not. > > > I'm not sure as to what others are sure is relevant or not is > > relevant or not... this statement, included. > > Yes. (definitely :-)) > > > > >> Seems to me that is a matter for his conscience and the software > >> police. > > > It seems to me that to ask a group which contains members who earn > > their bread and butter by writing software 'How can I do something > > which appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?' is not > > indicative of an action which would be the result of the sharpest > > bulb in the chandelier... errrr, the brightest knife in the > > elevator... errrr, a drawer which goes all the way to the top... > > errrrr, some manner of trite-and-truism. > > The translation of what was posted, into 'How can I do something which > appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?', is a considerable > stretch. It is not a stretch at all to someone with two clues to rub together and even to those who have heard about Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_emulator * Older IBM operating systems including OS/360, DOS/360, DOS/VS, MVS, VM/370, and TSS/370 are either public domain or "copyrighted software provided without charge."[1] * Newer licensed operating systems, such as OS/390, z/OS, VSE/ESA, z/VSE, VM/ESA, z/VM, TPF/ESA, and z/TPF are technically compatible but cannot legally run on the Hercules emulator except in very limited circumstances. > The question was about Natural, which is freely available and there > is no question of stealing it. """The uses of this Community Edition is time unlimited but restricted to non-production environments.""" There is a question. You can get a _Windows_ time-limited version or a community edition but using these in a production environment, or beyond "evaluation and testing" may be 'stealing'. For z/OS versions it may be that any version obtained without paying for a licence may be stealing.
From: Kulin Remailer on 17 May 2010 05:19 > The whole thing gets murkier. Hercules can legally be used to run > z/Linux or any of the public domain versions of MVS and VM. IBM seems > to be unwilling to license z/OS to run on emulated (Intel) hardware > and there was quite a row when a company tried to get this to happen > (Fundamental I think). While MVS was licensed on various clones, none > of them have survived to the 64 bit era so far as I know. You're mixing a few things in the same pot that should not be mixed. When IBM released MVS 3.8 and VM R6 to the public domain (they're 35 year old products, btw) they released them to the public domain. Hercules or not Hercules is not relevant. The software is in the public domain. I have not seen where IBM say it is ok to run z/Linux on Hercules. Do you have any links? > The discussion on z/OS on non-z machines through emulation is related > to the discussion about the high cost of COBOL compilers for > developers. In both cases the high cost of a development platform > impedes small developers. The original question about legally running > z/OS under Hercules (which does have a 64 bit emulation) was in part > because if the person is doing it legally, a number of people want to > know how. I agree with the first part of what you wrote and disagree with the last part. Yes, IBM has blocked the individual and small operation from participating in developing for z/OS except in some very specific and limited circumstances. The last part of what you wrote is disingenuous. Everybody knows there is no legal way to run z/OS on anything but IBM hardware. But there has been no enforcement. So either help, or get out of the way!
From: Pete Dashwood on 17 May 2010 06:40
docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <85a74gFgbrU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <857mn2FtgpU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>>> In article <4H3ZLJJ640312.889837963(a)reece.net.au>, >>>>> Kulin Remailer <remailer(a)reece.net.au> wrote: >>>>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic(a)ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've a zOS+Hercules setup installed in my notebook but I want >>>>>>>> install natural (softwareag) too. Do you know where can I find >>>>>>>> the disks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How did you do this legally? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's pathetic to see how many people work for the government. Are >>>>>> they paying you to enforce contracts you haven't even read, or do >>>>>> you just have too much spare time? >>>>> >>>>> It might be reasonably concluded that the abovegiven answer >>>>> readily translates to 'I did not do this legally'. >>>> >>>> Maybe. >>> >>> It might be reasonably concluded that the abogiven answer ('maybe') >>> readily translates into a variation of 'Yes, it might be'. >> >> Sure. But "maybe" admits the possibility of "No, it doesn't." also. > > Gosh and golly gee, Mr Dashwood... you mean that all these years of > seeing that word employed that particular possiblility was kept > concealed from me? Thank you, thank you, how could I *ever* thank > you sufficiently for having revealed such a hitherto-undiscovered > subeletly? > > [snip] > >>> It seems to me that to ask a group which contains members who earn >>> their bread and butter by writing software 'How can I do something >>> which appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?' is not >>> indicative of an action which would be the result of the sharpest >>> bulb in the chandelier... errrr, the brightest knife in the >>> elevator... errrr, a drawer which goes all the way to the top... >>> errrrr, some manner of trite-and-truism. >> >> The translation of what was posted, into 'How can I do something >> which appears to be an awful lot like stealing software?', is a >> considerable stretch. > > Calling a stretch 'considerable' is more a statement of the one doing > the exercise than of the exercise its'self... after all, for some it > might have been so considerable a stretch to consider that the > indefinite condition of 'maybe' could include both positive *and* > negative possibilities and that an explication of this was worth the > electrons to transmit it. > > DD Your sacrcasm is unwarranted and my response was not intended to insult your intelligence. You CHOSE to interpret "maybe" as supporting only the affirmation of your statement: " It might be reasonably concluded that the above given answer readily translates to 'I did not do this legally'." As I responded with "maybe" I did not wish to have my response construed as either supporting your statement or disagreeing with it. I therefore pointed out it can mean either. Had you not simply seized on the meaning that supported your statement, no electrons need have been utilized uselessly (and, as we both know, electrons cannot be wasted anyway so I'm taking this as being, like your sarcasm, a merely rhetorical device, rather than one which adds value to the discussion. Good night, Old Bean... Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |