On 3/26/08 5:05 PM, "Dave Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The existing licenses already allow running in a virtual environment and > don't specify what chips etc that could be. They could change future > licenses, perhaps, but MS licenses don't work like Mainframe Licenses and it > would be hard to exclude mainframe based emulation without excluding VM Ware.
Since z/VOS is neither emulation or paravirtualization it is conceivable that an attorney might take exception to how the MS EULA applied to running Windows/XP in the z/VM environment. Because Apple has been reluctant to take a clear stance on virtualization of their products we sent their legal department a letter asking for clarification of their position on the issue of running OS X under z/VM and received no response. They may still be working their way through the letter using Wikipedia to decode some of the acronyms. Ultimately we don't think either company will challenge the product on the basis of hardware platform. Here's why. 1. Its deep Green. 2. It's efficient and TCO positive 3. License sales will, in all likelihood, not go down. > I guess they could buy VM Ware first... If Microsoft waits until after the release of this product they maybe able to buy VM Ware for substantially less. Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation > > Dave G4UGM > Illegitimi Non Carborundum > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "McKown, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU> > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 7:09 PM > Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: The IBM z/VM Operating System >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Wade >> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:01 PM >> To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU >> Subject: Re: z/VM - Lightweight specific purpose file system >> >> >> Why would the Microsoft Licensing be "tricky"? Expensive >> perhaps as you need >> one license per virtual machine, but not tricky... > > Well, "tricky" in that MS might refuse to grant the license. They are > under no obligation to do so. And they are really, really worried about > Windows under any virtualization other than their own. Running on > "unsupported" hardware would likely make them even more reluctant. Of > course, I cannot think of any software that runs on Windows that I would > want to run on a z. I'd rather replace any such with "equivalent" > software, if there is some, or just run on Intel for that function. > > -- > John McKown > Senior Systems Programmer > HealthMarkets > Keeping the Promise of Affordable Coverage > Administrative Services Group > Information Technology > > The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged > and/or confidential. It is for intended addressee(s) only. If you are > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, > reproduction, distribution or other use of this communication is > strictly prohibited and could, in certain circumstances, be a criminal > offense. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the > sender by reply and delete this message without copying or disclosing > it. > --. .- .-. -.-- Gary Dennis Mantissa Corporation
