Roger Bowler wrote:
> If they had intended to exclude all non-IBM equipment, they would have
> said so explicitly. I cannot believe that all that convoluted phrasing
> is there just for fun.
>
>
I agree (do I ever disagree with you.. actually, yes I do !.. but that's
not the point !)

Anyway..

I think the there are 3 possible reasons for this wording (ordered in
decreasing order of probability)..

1) Lawyers fearing anti-trust laws.. I remember at some point where
every IBM documentation, when specifying a requirement would state 'IBM
Product XXX... or any other product providing equivalent
functionality'.. Maybe those lawyers are getting the upper hand back -
so they provide an exit clause they can point to the judges : See ?
we're not being closed to the competition (although, as Mark Altmark
noted, the wording is fuzzy enough to permit any possibly interpretation
anyone will ever need - including stating that z/Arch compliance on a
non documented interface can only be proven by IBM !)
2) They realized we're not the threat..and even more than that, not only
we're *not* the threat, but we're helping them ! (Yes.. Ivan.. You're
dreaming !)
3) The one that wrote the license just pucked some words out of a hat.

--Ivan



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]