Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/09/2007
   at 08:58 AM, "David J. Chase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>"Withdrawn From Marketing" means we will no longer ship new media for
>the program,

However, in the past IBM has acted as a conduit for old media between
existing customers. That was, of course, on a use at your own risk
basis.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[David J. Chase]

Re posting from: Timothy Sipples

> Getting media is another question.  IBM may not be able to supply
> it, so you'll have to find it from another source.  As long as you
> have a valid license this is apparently OK.  Most IBM software
> doesn't have license keys, so no obstacle there.

The rest of Timothy's post is correct, but I need to clarify something
from the paragraph quoted above.  The IBM Customer Agreement (ICA) does
not allow for the transfer of IBM's intellectual property from one
customer to another.  In simple words, you cannot acquire a program you
do not have from someone else. (I'm not talking about the various
remarketing or reseller agreements, obviously.  I'm also only talking
about ICA software, not IPLA software which is governed by a different
license agreement with different terms.)

"Withdrawn From Marketing" means we will no longer ship new media for
the program, and it means we won't license the program to someone who
does not have it.  However if you do have it already and you copy it to
another machine in your enterprise then we will create a new license for
the software on the new machine.  This has nothing to do with the metric
under which the program is charged.  The license is your permission to
use the software on a particular machine.  The "size" of the license,
and thus the monthly charge, is a separate issue, usually determined by
the size of the machine.

-- David J. Chase, WW zSeries Software Sales--
--IBM 18th Fl, 11 Madison Ave, NYC, NY  10010   --
-- 917-472-3346 - dchase at us.ibm.com  --

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Veilleux, Jon L]

Great point! 


Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683 


-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:06 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/08/2007
   at 06:41 AM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched"
>business-critical programs, and no one who knows how they work, and no 
>budget for conversion, and typical corporate tolerance for risk (i.e., 
>near zero)

Whether they know it or not, they *are* tolerating a substantial risk by
not having anyone who knows how the program works.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

-
This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If
you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the
sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately.
Thank you. Aetna

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)]

In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 03/08/2007
   at 06:41 AM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched"
>business-critical programs, and no one who knows how they work, and
>no budget for conversion, and typical corporate tolerance for risk
>(i.e., near zero)

Whether they know it or not, they *are* tolerating a substantial risk
by not having anyone who knows how the program works.
 
-- 
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
 ISO position; see  
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Timothy Sipples]

>Getting media is another question.  IBM may not be able to supply it, so
>you'll have to find it from another source.  As long as you have a valid
>license this is apparently OK.  Most IBM software doesn't have license
>keys, so no obstacle there.

It has since been pointed out to me that not all IBM license agreements
permit what I was suggesting.  I do know there are also possible financial
implications in certain tax jurisdictions when you take delivery of
software in certain forms and manners, so please be careful.

Also, there may be a few cases where royalties that IBM owes to a third
party could have an impact, especially if the royalty agreement changed at
some point.  Most software products are not in this category, but a few
are.

Regarding the immediate issue (very old COBOL runtime), I think I concur
with the general consensus response that it's time to go LE.  One thing the
customer's business executives should understand is that there is no
risk-free option here, there is only relative or comparative risk.
Thousands of customers have updated to LE and have healthy, thriving
businesses with excellent results, so I would consider the jump to LE to be
awfully small risk.  There are myriad risks in not making this
comparatively minor move, including business risks.  I don't presume to
understand the full picture, but as a general point it's important to
understand that inertia has risks, too.

There are some excellent IBM COBOL runtime specialists, so I'd recommend
reaching out to them for advice.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [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

Fw: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Bill Klein]

Actually, there is exactly ONE chapter,
   3.2 Chapter 6. Moving from the OS/VS COBOL run time
at:
  http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/BOOKS/IGY3MG32/3.2 

That tells you what to look for in migrating existing OS/VS COBOL compiled
programs to an LE run-time.  Have you read the summary to see how FEW issues
there really are?

I just find it impossible to think that buying an OS/VS COBOL run-time (and
running unsupported) would be "cost-effective" (money OR resources) compared
to at least TRYING a migration to a supported run-time.

"Charles Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> The current LE "COBOL Migration" manual lists a fair amount of analysis
and
> work to determine and or provide for upward compatibility. I believe them.
> 
> When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched" business-critical
> programs, and no one who knows how they work, and no budget for
conversion,
> and typical corporate tolerance for risk (i.e., near zero) it is a HUGE
> obstacle, and there is no reasoning it away, I fear.
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Of Bill Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:50 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products
> 
> I think that 97% compatible is GROSSLY underestimated.  Although this may
> not have always been true, but today, there are ALMOST no cases where the
> BEHAVIOR is different.  
> 
> I suppose that if you are
>   A) still using ISAM
>   or
>   B) TCAM
>   Or
>   C) other very old software, you might have a problem
> 
> HOWEVER< as long as you are running under z/OS, then you really, REALLY,
do
> not want the OS/VS COBOL run-time (either concatenated before or after
LE).
> If your OS/VS COBOL programs were link-edited with NORES, then you don't
> need ANY run-time library for them (and what you do have won't make any
> difference).
> 
> Can you actually give some reason TODAY not to use LE as the run-time for
> all non-NORES OS/VS COBOL programs - or are you just saying that your
> remember or heard that there USED to be a problem?

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Ed Gould]

On Mar 8, 2007, at 8:41 AM, Charles Mills wrote:

The current LE "COBOL Migration" manual lists a fair amount of  
analysis and
work to determine and or provide for upward compatibility. I  
believe them.


When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched" business- 
critical
programs, and no one who knows how they work, and no budget for  
conversion,
and typical corporate tolerance for risk (i.e., near zero) it is a  
HUGE

obstacle, and there is no reasoning it away, I fear.

Charles


---SNIP--

As I have said before you have to be a lawyer before reading the  
book. Be extremely *PARANOID* about wording they leave a lot of gray  
area (on purpose?) as well. Don't just accept their words at face  
value either. Read between the lines (and hopefully have good ESP) .


Having said that, there is some compatibility, but having said that.  
Be prepared to grow gray hair and be a political outcast because of  
issues that will probably come up.



Ed

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Steve Comstock]

Charles Mills wrote:

The current LE "COBOL Migration" manual lists a fair amount of analysis and
work to determine and or provide for upward compatibility. I believe them.

When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched" business-critical
programs, and no one who knows how they work, and no budget for conversion,
and typical corporate tolerance for risk (i.e., near zero) it is a HUGE
obstacle, and there is no reasoning it away, I fear.

Charles


Typical management approach these days:
 * gotta' make the change to keep support
 * never paid to keep people trained
 * won't pay to make the change
 * don't take any risk
 * Why can't we just wish the problem away?

Ya' gotta' spend money sometime, somehow. Today's
managers are paying the price for yesterday's
managers being cheap. Now the price is higher
but the "cheap" mentality lingers. Wait! Did I
say "cheap"? I meant "free"!



Reflecting a little more carefully on your second paragraph,
I got to wondering, what exactly is a HUGE obstacle, and
what is this thing an obstacle to? You are trying to say
something is preventing a customer from doing something.
I guess you're saying cost is the obstacle to conversion

Then, "there is no reasoning it away". Excuse me? What are
you trying to say? Let's see: you cannot reason the
obstacle away. Is that it? What does it mean to "reason
away" anything? I thought I understood the gist of your
post but now I guess I don't.

Kind regards,

-Steve Comstock

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Charles Mills]

The current LE "COBOL Migration" manual lists a fair amount of analysis and
work to determine and or provide for upward compatibility. I believe them.

When a customer has hundreds of "not recently touched" business-critical
programs, and no one who knows how they work, and no budget for conversion,
and typical corporate tolerance for risk (i.e., near zero) it is a HUGE
obstacle, and there is no reasoning it away, I fear.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bill Klein
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 9:50 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

I think that 97% compatible is GROSSLY underestimated.  Although this may
not have always been true, but today, there are ALMOST no cases where the
BEHAVIOR is different.  

I suppose that if you are
  A) still using ISAM
or
  B) TCAM
Or
  C) other very old software, you might have a problem

HOWEVER< as long as you are running under z/OS, then you really, REALLY, do
not want the OS/VS COBOL run-time (either concatenated before or after LE).
If your OS/VS COBOL programs were link-edited with NORES, then you don't
need ANY run-time library for them (and what you do have won't make any
difference).

Can you actually give some reason TODAY not to use LE as the run-time for
all non-NORES OS/VS COBOL programs - or are you just saying that your
remember or heard that there USED to be a problem?

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Charles Mills]

Thanks, Tim.

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Timothy Sipples
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:29 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

Please bear in mind this isn't an official answer.  Check with your
friendly local IBM representative.

"Withdrawn from marketing" means that IBM no longer accepts new orders for
the product.  This is pretty straightforward for most hardware: IBM just
won't ship you a particular (new) box.  Software gets interesting.

Yes, IBM can quote and will charge applicable increases for your currently
licensed products, even products withdrawn from marketing.  You can move

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Chase, John]

> -Original Message-
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Charles Mills
> 
> Does anyone have an answer to the question "what does IBM 
> mean by 'withdrawn from marketing'"?

It generally means you can no longer order the product.

That said, "everything is negotiable".

-jc-

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Timothy Sipples]

Please bear in mind this isn't an official answer.  Check with your
friendly local IBM representative.

"Withdrawn from marketing" means that IBM no longer accepts new orders for
the product.  This is pretty straightforward for most hardware: IBM just
won't ship you a particular (new) box.  Software gets interesting.

Yes, IBM can quote and will charge applicable increases for your currently
licensed products, even products withdrawn from marketing.  You can move
software from one box to another (e.g. hardware model upgrades, relocations
of data centers).  If your company is acquired by another the acquiring
company can continue to run the software, grow the software capacity, move
to "their" boxes (e.g. consolidation), and so on.  (There's a very
important definition of an "enterprise" in software licensing that covers
such events.)  I suppose it's theoretically possible for one company that
wants to obtain a withdrawn product to buy another company that already has
it. :-)  And you can even change the licensing terms, such as moving from
full capacity to subcapacity (VWLC) licensing, and keep your withdrawn
products.  (Most such products will probably pick up the new licensing
terms.)

Theoretically IBM is free to change the price of withdrawn products...but
IBM honors contracts.

And -- but please check me on this, too -- I believe it is even possible as
a new customer to buy at least some old software that's withdrawn from
marketing.  I seem to recall that certain "OTC" software product licenses
allow buying the new version and then running any prior version.  If the
product still exists and has a direct, lineal successor then I think this
works.  I think it also works if the whole of the old software product got
merged into a new one.  And it extends to past platforms when the license
is cross-platform.  For example, if you want to buy Personal Communications
for DOS, which hasn't been marketed for a long time and is unsupported, you
can buy Host Access Client Package (HACP) which includes Personal
Communications for Windows: the lineage is intact.

And if all that's not enough, you can try for a "special bid" and see if
IBM can quote a price.  They'll probably find the closest modern match and
price on that.

Getting media is another question.  IBM may not be able to supply it, so
you'll have to find it from another source.  As long as you have a valid
license this is apparently OK.  Most IBM software doesn't have license
keys, so no obstacle there.

All that said, it's not usually a good idea to buy withdrawn products.

- - - - -
Timothy Sipples
IBM Consulting Enterprise Software Architect
Specializing in Software Architectures Related to System z
Based in Tokyo, Serving IBM Japan and IBM Asia-Pacific
E-Mail: [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

General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Bill Klein]

I think that 97% compatible is GROSSLY underestimated.  Although this may
not have always been true, but today, there are ALMOST no cases where the
BEHAVIOR is different.  

I suppose that if you are
  A) still using ISAM
or
  B) TCAM
Or
  C) other very old software, you might have a problem

HOWEVER< as long as you are running under z/OS, then you really, REALLY, do
not want the OS/VS COBOL run-time (either concatenated before or after LE).
If your OS/VS COBOL programs were link-edited with NORES, then you don't
need ANY run-time library for them (and what you do have won't make any
difference).

Can you actually give some reason TODAY not to use LE as the run-time for
all non-NORES OS/VS COBOL programs - or are you just saying that your
remember or heard that there USED to be a problem?

I can imagine in some VERY peculiar cases IBM allowing (selling) you the
chance to move the compiler to a new machine; I can't imagine IBM doing
ANYTHING to allow you to use the old OS/VS COBOL (or even VS COBOL II)
run-time libraries.  And I am not just saying you wouldn't be supported, I
am saying that trying to move them to new machines would NOT be something
that IBM would "knowingly" tolerate.

"Charles Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > AND OF COURSE, as far a RUN-TIME goes, if you have z/OS, then you
already
> > have the OS/VS COBOL run-time support. (It's part of LE).
> 
> Well, now you're getting to the heart of the actual issue. (This is not
just
> an academic question.) LE support for the older COBOLs is 99% compatible
--
> which is to say, NOT compatible. Specifically, LE requires some moderately
> sophisticated analysis and possibly the re-linking (or more) of older
COBOL
> programs. Now you may say that's an easy conversion, but if a customer has
> no budget allocated to the task, it's a showstopper. (We don't argue with
> customers.)
> 
> So, if a customer had non-LE-compatible OS/VS COBOL programs and wanted to
> install a second box, would IBM license the 5740-LM1 runtime? ("Why don't
> you ask IBM?" IBM speaks with many voices. There is no asking IBM; one can
> only ask individuals AT IBM.)
> 
> We have ordered old programs successfully in the past. Does anyone know if
> there has been a recent change of policy? We're getting a new answer to an
> old question.
> 
> (And yes, we successfully installed with SMP4.)
> 
> Charles
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Of Bill Klein
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:45 PM
> To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
> Subject: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products
> 
> I don't know what IBM would do with a "PRPQ" type request for a NEW order
> for the OS/VS COBOL compiler, but I don't think it would receive a "warm"
> welcome.  (Do you remember how to install a product with SMP4?  OS/VS
COBOL
> was never delivered with SMP/E support)
> 
> As far as a shop getting a new (larger) machine, my guess (and I am not
> certain of this) is that one could "move" the existing compiler from one
to
> the other without IBM crying too loudly.
> 
> AND OF COURSE, as far a RUN-TIME goes, if you have z/OS, then you already
> have the OS/VS COBOL run-time support. (It's part of LE).

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Charles Mills]

> AND OF COURSE, as far a RUN-TIME goes, if you have z/OS, then you already
> have the OS/VS COBOL run-time support. (It's part of LE).

Well, now you're getting to the heart of the actual issue. (This is not just
an academic question.) LE support for the older COBOLs is 99% compatible --
which is to say, NOT compatible. Specifically, LE requires some moderately
sophisticated analysis and possibly the re-linking (or more) of older COBOL
programs. Now you may say that's an easy conversion, but if a customer has
no budget allocated to the task, it's a showstopper. (We don't argue with
customers.)

So, if a customer had non-LE-compatible OS/VS COBOL programs and wanted to
install a second box, would IBM license the 5740-LM1 runtime? ("Why don't
you ask IBM?" IBM speaks with many voices. There is no asking IBM; one can
only ask individuals AT IBM.)

We have ordered old programs successfully in the past. Does anyone know if
there has been a recent change of policy? We're getting a new answer to an
old question.

(And yes, we successfully installed with SMP4.)

Charles

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Bill Klein
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:45 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

I don't know what IBM would do with a "PRPQ" type request for a NEW order
for the OS/VS COBOL compiler, but I don't think it would receive a "warm"
welcome.  (Do you remember how to install a product with SMP4?  OS/VS COBOL
was never delivered with SMP/E support)

As far as a shop getting a new (larger) machine, my guess (and I am not
certain of this) is that one could "move" the existing compiler from one to
the other without IBM crying too loudly.

AND OF COURSE, as far a RUN-TIME goes, if you have z/OS, then you already
have the OS/VS COBOL run-time support. (It's part of LE).

--
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

General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Bill Klein]

I don't know what IBM would do with a "PRPQ" type request for a NEW order
for the OS/VS COBOL compiler, but I don't think it would receive a "warm"
welcome.  (Do you remember how to install a product with SMP4?  OS/VS COBOL
was never delivered with SMP/E support)

As far as a shop getting a new (larger) machine, my guess (and I am not
certain of this) is that one could "move" the existing compiler from one to
the other without IBM crying too loudly.

AND OF COURSE, as far a RUN-TIME goes, if you have z/OS, then you already
have the OS/VS COBOL run-time support. (It's part of LE).

"Charles Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Does anyone have an answer to the question "what does IBM mean by
'withdrawn
> from marketing'"?
> 
> Lots of long-withdrawn from marketing products are still in widespread use
> -- OS/VS COBOL is a great example -- and I am sure IBM is happily cashing
> the license checks every month. So "withdrawn from marketing" does NOT
mean
> "not for sale." Will IBM accept a new order for a withdrawn product --
> suppose a shop that used OS/VS COBOL installed an additional box? Is there
> any way to tell if an IBM software offering is truly "not for sale" (and I
> am using the word "sale" loosely -- obviously, software is licensed)?
> 
> Charles Mills

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Ken Porowski]

IIRC 'Withdrawn from Marketing' means the product is no longer orderable
but may still be supported.
'Withdrawn from Service' means no new service will be created for the
product and no APARs will be taken for it.
AFAIK if a product has been withdrawn from marketing and service you
could still license the product for use (and pay for box upgrades) but
can not get an install tape or a service/support license. 

In this post SOX world your auditors may take issues with use of an
unsupported product.

-Original Message-
Charles Mills

Does anyone have an answer to the question "what does IBM mean by
'withdrawn from marketing'"?

Lots of long-withdrawn from marketing products are still in widespread
use
-- OS/VS COBOL is a great example -- and I am sure IBM is happily
cashing the license checks every month. So "withdrawn from marketing"
does NOT mean "not for sale." Will IBM accept a new order for a
withdrawn product -- suppose a shop that used OS/VS COBOL installed an
additional box? Is there any way to tell if an IBM software offering is
truly "not for sale" (and I am using the word "sale" loosely --
obviously, software is licensed)?

Charles Mills

--
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

Re: General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Bob Shannon]

No. IBM won't sell a product that has been withdrawn from marketing. If
you copy OS/VS COBOL to another system you are obliged to inform IBM.
IBM will charge for the use of the product, but you cannot order another
copy from IBM.

Bob Shannon (who has tried)

--
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

General question on licensing "obsolete" IBM products

[Charles Mills]

Does anyone have an answer to the question "what does IBM mean by 'withdrawn
from marketing'"?

Lots of long-withdrawn from marketing products are still in widespread use
-- OS/VS COBOL is a great example -- and I am sure IBM is happily cashing
the license checks every month. So "withdrawn from marketing" does NOT mean
"not for sale." Will IBM accept a new order for a withdrawn product --
suppose a shop that used OS/VS COBOL installed an additional box? Is there
any way to tell if an IBM software offering is truly "not for sale" (and I
am using the word "sale" loosely -- obviously, software is licensed)?

Charles Mills

--
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