>Because software companies tend to make much of money on maintenance. >100 (say) distributed licenses replaced by 1 z license = less maintenance; the >ILC doesn't necessarily cover the delta.
If that were true, ORACLE would most likely not been involved in the PQ conversion project, a few years ago. >Plus some vendors let you move licenses, so they might NOT even be new SAS >licenses. ORACLE (I beleive, but I could be wrong) asked/told them to obtain new licences when Quebec converted. Also (again from memory, and another possibility of error), the licences on z were slightly more expensive than UNIX & Windows versions. >(I have no idea what SAS licensing looks like, so none of this may apply, but >it's the argument some vendors have used to avoid Linux on z.) Exactly, just like the OP. We have no ideas what SAS licensing looks like, so we cannot state, uncategorically, that SAS institute would lose money. Only they know for sure. Who knows? Since it's written in C, maybe it's just testing costs that SAS Institute will have to concern themselves about. But, I don't know. And, I don't know how compatible C & gcc are. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
