The only vendor I have ever had that took real exception to reverse engineering their code was one that had a security exposure (unrestricted SPFCOPY SVC). They made all kinds of threats. In the end, they fixed there code.
Dennis Roach GHG Corporation Lockheed Martin Mission Services Flight Design and Operations Contract NASA/JSC Address: 2100 Space Park Drive LM-15-4BH Houston, Texas 77058 Mail: P.O. Box 58487 Mail Code H4C Houston, Texas 77258 Phone: Voice: (281)336-5027 Cell: (713)591-1059 Fax: (281)336-5410 E-Mail: [email protected] All opinions expressed by me are mine and may not agree with my employer or any person, company, or thing, living or dead, on or near this or any other planet, moon, asteroid, or other spatial object, natural or manufactured, since the beginning of time. > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Timothy Sipples > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:51 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Any products to protect MVS software from cracking and > reverse engineering? > > Shai Hess writes: > >MF must be open to take some good idea from PC to become > >a better platform. > > I agree, and the mainframe is open. For example, is a System z > mainframe > running Novell or Red Hat Linux more or less "open" than a PC server > running Microsoft Windows 2008? I think the answer to that question is > quite obvious. > > But you must surely recognize the supreme irony in what you're asking > for: > that in order to be "open" you want the mainframe (or at least your > software) to prevent customers from all possibility of inspecting > running > code in any fashion, to be just like a PC. Every customer I've ever met > would consider such an approach 110% closed and stifling. On both PCs > and > mainframes. > > I think that "PC versus mainframe" is a dodge, to be blunt. This is > entirely a "vendor versus customer" argument. It concerns how you view > your customers and their requirements in relation to yours, and whether > you can reach mutually beneficial business agreements. In my > experience, > on both PCs and mainframes, customers must be able to manage what you > sell > them effectively, whether it's for reasons of performance analysis, > troubleshooting and problem determination, security, backup/recovery, > or > whatever. Those management requirements are effectively non-negotiable, > and customers have many alternatives in this competitive marketplace. > > As mentioned, let's take a few steps back here. What business goal(s) > are > you trying to accomplish? > > - - - - - > Timothy Sipples > Consulting Enterprise Software Architect > IBM Japan, Ltd. > [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
