Tony, Everyone can have their own opinion. Mine is that the statement means that Java byte code is eligible; otherwise it is inconsistent and already violated by many, many cases and organizations including IBM themselves. I am pretty sure that my IP attorney would say that the language is poorly written.
For example: I am reasonably certain that Websphere can't violate the zAAP eligibility license terms, but Websphere includes byte code that did not originate from Java-language source code. Also, IBM's own tooling converts annotations into byte-code modifications (those are not part of the "Java language") - would you argue that those are not zAAP eligible? If you are really worried, then open an ETR or get an IBM representative to clarify the eligibility terms. Kirk Wolf Dovetailed Technologies http://dovetail.com On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Tony Harminc <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 September 2016 at 19:57, Paul Gilmartin > <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:03:56 -0400, Tony Harminc wrote: > >>One could argue that this precludes anything not actually written in > >>the Java language. Or one could argue that it's Java bytecodes or > >>class files that are or are not eligible, in which case Scala would be > >>fine. But any argument that says Scala is eligible would work just as > >>well to argue that COBOL compiled into a Java class would be eligible; > >>something I expect IBM would not agree to. > >> > > Why not? > > Because IBM doesn't want existing COBOL code to be able to be easily > moved from high margin CPUs to low margin "specialty" engines. If it's > a niche market that attracts few customers then they probably won't > take action. If it gets popular, they will. > > > One could similarly argue that HLASM code created > > by the PL/S compiler is supported by HLASM, but HLASM code > > created by the Dignus C compiler is not. > > You think like a programmer; not like a lawyer. Not that that's a bad > thing, but certainly judges (and politicians) tend to think like > lawyers... We're not arguing a technical point here. > > I can't see any reason that IBM couldn't license HLASM with Ts & Cs > saying that only customer code written in the assembler language may > be used as input to the assembler. The days of the consent decree are > long gone, and more recently competition authorities in the US and EU > have declined to take action, so it's pretty much open. > > I imagine an IBM lawyer would argue that since PL/S is used only by > IBM programmers using IBM-internal processes, it is not relevant to > the matter of whether Dignus code works with HLASM. Or something like > that. > > > The telling point is whether the intermediate product conforms to the > specifications > > of the subsequent processor. > > I think not. That makes sense to you and to me and probably to most > IBM developers, but I very much doubt that IBM lawyers would see it > that way. > > >>I suppose the bottom line, as always, is that IBM can decide to > >>interpret this the way it wants at the time it wants. > >> > > Sort of. If HLASM fails PL/S output, IBM is free to modify HLASM > > if they deem that easier than fixing PL/S. IBM probably wouldn't > > do the same for Dignus C. But Dignus might object strongly if HLASM > > is violating its own published specifications. > > They can object all they want, but IBM pretty much sets the terms of > engagement these days. > > Tony H. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
