On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 09:26:36AM -0400, Peter D. Ward wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> >People, discussions of whether, and how, someone wishing to run licensed IBM
> >software on Hercules has a license to do so are off-topic for this list. As
> >we've seen, they generate more heat than light, and never result in any
> >useful information.
> The ONLY reason for the lack of any useful information is because
> typically the person using the IBM software won't post an answer to
> those asking the question about his license. Are you saying that a
> response as to how to obtain a license for use of IBM software on
> Hercules would not be useful information appropriate to the Hercules list?

I'm saying that there's been a lot of folks pestering people who say they're
licensed to run IBM software on Hercules. Those people may or may not be
able to discuss how, or why. I'm certain that if someone is able to say why,
they'll tell us. Until that point, the pestering and haranguing that goes on
is neither useful nor appropriate.

> >It's not appropriate, however, to ask them how they got that
> >way, or to discuss IBM's obvious failings in that regard, on the
> >hercules-390 list.
> "obvious failings"? Does that mean you now believe that IBM does not at
> this time license IBM software for use on Hercules?

Stop putting words in my mouth, please. I said nothing of the sort. It's
messages like this that remind me that you're a lawyer, and thus prone to
using the lawyer's trick of twisting words and meanings to become what you
wish to argue, not what the person who wrote them actually said.

What I was referring to was IBM's lack of any form of personal-use
licensing, which is an obvious failing to nearly everyone present on the
hercules-390 list.

> If that is obvious to you, then what do you generally conclude about a
> poster who is obviously using such software and who is unwilling to
> explain themselves?

I do not have enough information to reach a conclusion. IBM does, and I'm
certain they monitor the list; if they care, they'll let the poster know in
no uncertain terms. I'm given to understand that their intellectual property
lawyers are in an evil mood at the moment due to the SCO mess, and would
love nothing better than to hammer some poor sucker who obviously deserves
it.

> And what do you suggest by way of Herc list policy regarding offering
> assistance in the event someone reveals that they are using the software
> without a license?

If someone admits they're running the struff unlicensed, then I doubt
they'll get any help, as the membership of the list has been quite
adequately sensitized to the issue. In the absence of such an admission, we
do not have sufficient information to reach an informed conclusion, and so I
leave it up to each individual poster to decide. A reminder that the terms
of the software license must be adhered to is appropriate; further
discussion, which tends to be lenghy, repetitive, and unenlightening, is
not.