CBS's "60 Minutes": Quantum Computing

[Timothy Sipples]

If you’d like to understand why IBM is so bullish on quantum computing — and so 
focused on quantum-safe cryptography — this “60 Minutes” story is well worth 
watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ssT6Dzmnw

—
Timothy Sipples
Senior Architect
Digital Assets, Industry Solutions, and Cybersecurity
IBM zSystems/LinuxONE, Asia-Pacific
sipp...@sg.ibm.com


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler programmer wanted

[Dean Kent]

You are a person.  People have rights, objects do not.    The company 
can require that you assign them the rights to any invention created 
using the things they paid for - computers, software, offices, books.   
Training/experience is more of a gray area in my mind.


Note that software used to be copyrightable - not patentable. That 
changed in the 80s, I believe.   If you've ever looked into patenting 
something, you would see that the inventor has to be a person (not a 
company) - while the assignee is the 'owner' of the property.


That's my recollection and understanding.

On 12/4/2023 7:53 AM, Bob Bridges wrote:

Ok, now you've got me curious.  While I'm employed by a California software 
company, I ~am~ a company resource, am I not?  How is the law worded to bypass 
that (so to speak)?

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* A tart temper never mellows with age, and a sharp tongue is the only edged tool that 
grows keener with constant use.  -from "Rip van Vinkle" by Washington Irving */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Dean Kent
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 09:48

As part of the employment agreement for this acquiring company we had to 
sign a contract that stated anything we thought, said, did, wrote, or otherwise 
created - whether at work or at home - while employed was owned by the 
company[But] State laws prevented them from snatching ownership for most of 
what they were claiming.  California law, to the best of my knowledge, does 
give the employer ownership of an invention/product if it was developed using 
company resources, and/or

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler programmer wanted

[Dave Beagle]

Funny how the industry's most associated with “intellectual property” and 
residuals are some of the least intellectual. IT workers should have unionized 
50 years ago and could have gotten a “piece of a very large pie”. Deservedly 
so. It would have included engineers, computer scientists, mathematicians, 
Architects and scientists. (Perhaps others) Some of the most educated 
intellectuals in the world.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Monday, December 4, 2023, 11:56 AM, Seymour J Metz  wrote:

Correcting an error or writing an enhancement *does* generate revenue, directly 
or indirectly, by helping to acquire or retain users.

Asking for a piece of the pie is always reasonable, as is refusing the request. 
It's a matter of finding terms that both sides can agree on. In practice I 
suspect that most companies would refuse to pay royalties but would offer 
something else to sweeten the pie.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Dean Kent 
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Assembler programmer wanted

I think this is a bad analogy.  The guy who installs or fixes an item
that does not actually generate revenue certainly can ask for residuals
- but there aren't any since there is no income from it.

However, if residuals is a thing (which it is in some industries) then
asking for a piece of the pie for something that generates a regular
income stream seems reasonable.  In fact, I would suggest that it does
exist - though it isn't common.  There are some companies that will pay
a tiny percentage of revenue generated by patents that result in
revenue.  More often, however, they pay a 'bounty' for those patents
and require the IP be assigned to them.  I don't think it is a stretch
to claim that a significant contributor of a bit of software should get
a residual.  If we stretch it a bit further, isn't that what a
licensing fee is? So at that point, we are not discussing residuals, but
(partial or full) ownership.  I would suggest that if the software
industry needs anything to be stronger, it is how IP rights are handled.

I live in California.  The company I worked for was bought out by a very
large software company over 20 years ago.  As part of the employment
agreement for this acquiring company we had to sign a contract that
stated anything we thought, said, did, wrote, or otherwise created -
whether at work or at home - while employed was owned by the company.
I balked until I turned the page and it said "does not apply to
California or Minnesota employees". State laws prevented them from
snatching ownership for most of what they were claiming.  California
law, to the best of my knowledge, does give the employer ownership of an
invention/product if it was developed using company resources, and/or
knowledge that could only have been acquired through that employer.
Otherwise, it is owned by the person who developed it.    Disclaimer:  IANAL

On 12/3/2023 3:00 PM, Tom Brennan wrote:
> Should I pay something to the guy who put the shingles on my house
> every time it rains?
>
> It's a trick question.  I'm the guy who put the shingles on my house.
>
> On 12/3/2023 12:07 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:
>> When a bank runs an EFTPOS transaction, a fee is charged, all thanks to
>> some code. When they run a mortgage amortization program, a debit occurs
>> on  a periodic basis. The whole system of direct debits generates a
>> transfer of funds from a customer to the code executor...
>>
>> I could go on
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Bob Bridges 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL, the Indians and I would have more work offered to us :).
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* I like what the Roman fellow said: “I think nothing human alien
>>> to me.”
>>> When I read of a Mao or a Susan Smith, I try to imagine their
>>> temptations,
>>> not to exculpate them, but to implicate myself. Part of the
>>> greatness of
>>> Macbeth lies in the way it shows terrible crimes from the inside,
>>> without
>>> in the least excusing them.  -Joe Sobran, Dec 1994 */
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Doug Fuerst
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 15:37
>>>
>>> Maybe we should ask for residuals for our creative property like
>>> actors.
>>> We give it all away too easily.  What would happen if we all went on
>>> strike?
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to 

Re: zOSMF install

[Allan Staller]

Classification: Confidential

Short answer. Yes. Do it now.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pommier, Rex
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: zOSMF install

[CAUTION: This Email is from outside the Organization. Unless you trust the 
sender, Don’t click links or open attachments as it may be a Phishing email, 
which can steal your Information and compromise your Computer.]

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on this.

Scenario is we're running z/OS 2.4.  We don't have zOSMF installed.  Sometime 
next year we're going to migrate to 3.1.  Would we be better off 
installing/implementing zOSMF 2.4 today in preparation for installing 3.1 or 
should we install zOSMF 3.1 and implement that before installing z/OS 3.1?  Can 
we even install zOSMF 3.1 without having a running zOSMF install already?

Thanks,

Rex

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
::DISCLAIMER::

The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and intended 
for the named recipient(s) only. E-mail transmission is not guaranteed to be 
secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or may contain viruses in transmission. 
The e mail and its contents (with or without referred errors) shall therefore 
not attach any liability on the originator or HCL or its affiliates. Views or 
opinions, if any, presented in this email are solely those of the author and 
may not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of HCL or its affiliates. Any 
form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, 
distribution and / or publication of this message without the prior written 
consent of authorized representative of HCL is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this email in error please delete it and notify the sender 
immediately. Before opening any email and/or attachments, please check them for 
viruses and other defects.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler programmer wanted

[Seymour J Metz]

Correcting an error or writing an enhancement *does* generate revenue, directly 
or indirectly, by helping to acquire or retain users.

Asking for a piece of the pie is always reasonable, as is refusing the request. 
It's a matter of finding terms that both sides can agree on. In practice I 
suspect that most companies would refuse to pay royalties but would offer 
something else to sweeten the pie.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי
נֵ֣צַח יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לֹ֥א יְשַׁקֵּ֖ר


From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  on behalf of 
Dean Kent 
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 9:47 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Assembler programmer wanted

I think this is a bad analogy.   The guy who installs or fixes an item
that does not actually generate revenue certainly can ask for residuals
- but there aren't any since there is no income from it.

However, if residuals is a thing (which it is in some industries) then
asking for a piece of the pie for something that generates a regular
income stream seems reasonable.   In fact, I would suggest that it does
exist - though it isn't common.   There are some companies that will pay
a tiny percentage of revenue generated by patents that result in
revenue.   More often, however, they pay a 'bounty' for those patents
and require the IP be assigned to them.   I don't think it is a stretch
to claim that a significant contributor of a bit of software should get
a residual.   If we stretch it a bit further, isn't that what a
licensing fee is? So at that point, we are not discussing residuals, but
(partial or full) ownership.   I would suggest that if the software
industry needs anything to be stronger, it is how IP rights are handled.

I live in California.  The company I worked for was bought out by a very
large software company over 20 years ago.   As part of the employment
agreement for this acquiring company we had to sign a contract that
stated anything we thought, said, did, wrote, or otherwise created -
whether at work or at home - while employed was owned by the company.
I balked until I turned the page and it said "does not apply to
California or Minnesota employees". State laws prevented them from
snatching ownership for most of what they were claiming.  California
law, to the best of my knowledge, does give the employer ownership of an
invention/product if it was developed using company resources, and/or
knowledge that could only have been acquired through that employer.
Otherwise, it is owned by the person who developed it.Disclaimer:  IANAL

On 12/3/2023 3:00 PM, Tom Brennan wrote:
> Should I pay something to the guy who put the shingles on my house
> every time it rains?
>
> It's a trick question.  I'm the guy who put the shingles on my house.
>
> On 12/3/2023 12:07 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:
>> When a bank runs an EFTPOS transaction, a fee is charged, all thanks to
>> some code. When they run a mortgage amortization program, a debit occurs
>> on  a periodic basis. The whole system of direct debits generates a
>> transfer of funds from a customer to the code executor...
>>
>> I could go on
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Bob Bridges 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL, the Indians and I would have more work offered to us :).
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
>>>
>>> /* I like what the Roman fellow said: “I think nothing human alien
>>> to me.”
>>> When I read of a Mao or a Susan Smith, I try to imagine their
>>> temptations,
>>> not to exculpate them, but to implicate myself. Part of the
>>> greatness of
>>> Macbeth lies in the way it shows terrible crimes from the inside,
>>> without
>>> in the least excusing them.  -Joe Sobran, Dec 1994 */
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On
>>> Behalf
>>> Of Doug Fuerst
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 15:37
>>>
>>> Maybe we should ask for residuals for our creative property like
>>> actors.
>>> We give it all away too easily.  What would happen if we all went on
>>> strike?
>>>
>>> --
>>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF install

[Pommier, Rex]

Hi Kurt,

Thank you.  That is exactly the answer I needed.  We installed 2.4 with a 
ServerPac and as I am just starting down the implementation path of zOSMF, my 
manager asked me to find out if we should try to get the 3.1 zOSMF stand-alone 
and install that first.  Your response confirmed that I just need to continue 
with implementing the 2.4 zOSMF.

Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Kurt Quackenbush
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:36 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF install


> I know I need zOSMF to install 3.1.  My question is, in essence, can (or 
> should) I order and install a stand-alone zOSMF 3.1 and use that for my z/OS 
> 3.1 install or am I better off (or is this the only option) installing zOSMF 
> 2.4 before even heading down the 3.1 path?

Did you install z/OS 2.4 using ServerPac?  If so, then unless you specifically 
deleted it, you already have z/OSMF installed on your z/OS 2.4.  You may not 
have it configured and running, but it should be there.  If it is present, then 
recommend configuring and starting the z/OSMF server on your z/OS 2.4 in 
preparation for installing z/OS 3.1.  Be sure to install all PTFs associated 
with the IBM.DrivingSystem-RequiredService fix category.

If in fact you do not already have an installed copy of z/OSMF on your z/OS 
2.4, then your choices are limited as you can not order or obtain z/OSMF for 
z/OS 2.4, nor an entire z/OS 2.4.  You might be stuck with getting and using 
the COD (Customized Offerings Driver) which is a load-and-go z/OS containing a 
z/OSMF server which you can then use to install z/OS 3.1.

Kurt Quackenbush
IBM  |  z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management  |  ku...@us.ibm.com

Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF install

[Kurt Quackenbush]

> I know I need zOSMF to install 3.1.  My question is, in essence, can (or 
> should) I order and install a stand-alone zOSMF 3.1 and use that for my z/OS 
> 3.1 install or am I better off (or is this the only option) installing zOSMF 
> 2.4 before even heading down the 3.1 path?

Did you install z/OS 2.4 using ServerPac?  If so, then unless you specifically 
deleted it, you already have z/OSMF installed on your z/OS 2.4.  You may not 
have it configured and running, but it should be there.  If it is present, then 
recommend configuring and starting the z/OSMF server on your z/OS 2.4 in 
preparation for installing z/OS 3.1.  Be sure to install all PTFs associated 
with the IBM.DrivingSystem-RequiredService fix category.

If in fact you do not already have an installed copy of z/OSMF on your z/OS 
2.4, then your choices are limited as you can not order or obtain z/OSMF for 
z/OS 2.4, nor an entire z/OS 2.4.  You might be stuck with getting and using 
the COD (Customized Offerings Driver) which is a load-and-go z/OS containing a 
z/OSMF server which you can then use to install z/OS 3.1.

Kurt Quackenbush
IBM  |  z/OS SMP/E and z/OSMF Software Management  |  ku...@us.ibm.com

Chuck Norris never uses CHECK when he applies PTFs.

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF install

[Pommier, Rex]

Hi Richard, 

I know I need zOSMF to install 3.1.  My question is, in essence, can (or 
should) I order and install a stand-alone zOSMF 3.1 and use that for my z/OS 
3.1 install or am I better off (or is this the only option) installing zOSMF 
2.4 before even heading down the 3.1 path?

Thanks again,
Rex

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Richard McIntosh
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:10 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: zOSMF install

You need zOSMF to install 3.1.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pommier, Rex
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] : zOSMF install

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on this.

Scenario is we're running z/OS 2.4.  We don't have zOSMF installed.  Sometime 
next year we're going to migrate to 3.1.  Would we be better off 
installing/implementing zOSMF 2.4 today in preparation for installing 3.1 or 
should we install zOSMF 3.1 and implement that before installing z/OS 3.1?  Can 
we even install zOSMF 3.1 without having a running zOSMF install already?

Thanks,

Rex

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF install

[Richard McIntosh]

You need zOSMF to install 3.1.

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Pommier, Rex
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 10:07 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: [External] : zOSMF install

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on this.

Scenario is we're running z/OS 2.4.  We don't have zOSMF installed.  Sometime 
next year we're going to migrate to 3.1.  Would we be better off 
installing/implementing zOSMF 2.4 today in preparation for installing 3.1 or 
should we install zOSMF 3.1 and implement that before installing z/OS 3.1?  Can 
we even install zOSMF 3.1 without having a running zOSMF install already?

Thanks,

Rex

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to 
lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

zOSMF install

[Pommier, Rex]

Hi all,

Just looking for opinions on this.

Scenario is we're running z/OS 2.4.  We don't have zOSMF installed.  Sometime 
next year we're going to migrate to 3.1.  Would we be better off 
installing/implementing zOSMF 2.4 today in preparation for installing 3.1 or 
should we install zOSMF 3.1 and implement that before installing z/OS 3.1?  Can 
we even install zOSMF 3.1 without having a running zOSMF install already?

Thanks,

Rex

--
The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from 
disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not 
the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, 
distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, 
is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this 
message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard 
copy format. Thank you.


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler programmer wanted

[Bob Bridges]

Ok, now you've got me curious.  While I'm employed by a California software 
company, I ~am~ a company resource, am I not?  How is the law worded to bypass 
that (so to speak)?

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* A tart temper never mellows with age, and a sharp tongue is the only edged 
tool that grows keener with constant use.  -from "Rip van Vinkle" by Washington 
Irving */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Dean Kent
Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 09:48

As part of the employment agreement for this acquiring company we had to 
sign a contract that stated anything we thought, said, did, wrote, or otherwise 
created - whether at work or at home - while employed was owned by the 
company[But] State laws prevented them from snatching ownership for most of 
what they were claiming.  California law, to the best of my knowledge, does 
give the employer ownership of an invention/product if it was developed using 
company resources, and/or

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Non system LX value

[Binyamin Dissen]

You need an authorized routine that can run in the client address space to
issue the ATSET.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 08:19:38 -0500 Joseph Reichman 
wrote:

:>Hi 
:>
:>I have been looking over syncrounes cross memory or PC rtn’s 
:>
:>What I seem to be missing is where you want to make that service available to 
certain address spaces 
:>
:>So you code on the LXRES SYSTEM=NO 
:>
:>But I don’t see any where where you specify an asid indicating what address 
space you want to provide this service to 
:>
:>Thanks
:>--
:>For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
:>send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

--
Binyamin Dissen 
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: Assembler programmer wanted

[Dean Kent]

I think this is a bad analogy.   The guy who installs or fixes an item 
that does not actually generate revenue certainly can ask for residuals 
- but there aren't any since there is no income from it.


However, if residuals is a thing (which it is in some industries) then 
asking for a piece of the pie for something that generates a regular 
income stream seems reasonable.   In fact, I would suggest that it does 
exist - though it isn't common.   There are some companies that will pay 
a tiny percentage of revenue generated by patents that result in 
revenue.   More often, however, they pay a 'bounty' for those patents 
and require the IP be assigned to them.   I don't think it is a stretch 
to claim that a significant contributor of a bit of software should get 
a residual.   If we stretch it a bit further, isn't that what a 
licensing fee is? So at that point, we are not discussing residuals, but 
(partial or full) ownership.   I would suggest that if the software 
industry needs anything to be stronger, it is how IP rights are handled.


I live in California.  The company I worked for was bought out by a very 
large software company over 20 years ago.   As part of the employment 
agreement for this acquiring company we had to sign a contract that 
stated anything we thought, said, did, wrote, or otherwise created - 
whether at work or at home - while employed was owned by the company.   
I balked until I turned the page and it said "does not apply to 
California or Minnesota employees". State laws prevented them from 
snatching ownership for most of what they were claiming.  California 
law, to the best of my knowledge, does give the employer ownership of an 
invention/product if it was developed using company resources, and/or 
knowledge that could only have been acquired through that employer.   
Otherwise, it is owned by the person who developed it.    Disclaimer:  IANAL


On 12/3/2023 3:00 PM, Tom Brennan wrote:
Should I pay something to the guy who put the shingles on my house 
every time it rains?


It's a trick question.  I'm the guy who put the shingles on my house.

On 12/3/2023 12:07 PM, Wayne Bickerdike wrote:

When a bank runs an EFTPOS transaction, a fee is charged, all thanks to
some code. When they run a mortgage amortization program, a debit occurs
on  a periodic basis. The whole system of direct debits generates a
transfer of funds from a customer to the code executor...

I could go on

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 7:03 AM Bob Bridges  
wrote:



LOL, the Indians and I would have more work offered to us :).

---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313

/* I like what the Roman fellow said: “I think nothing human alien 
to me.”
When I read of a Mao or a Susan Smith, I try to imagine their 
temptations,
not to exculpate them, but to implicate myself. Part of the 
greatness of
Macbeth lies in the way it shows terrible crimes from the inside, 
without

in the least excusing them.  -Joe Sobran, Dec 1994 */

-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On 
Behalf

Of Doug Fuerst
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 15:37

Maybe we should ask for residuals for our creative property like 
actors.
We give it all away too easily.  What would happen if we all went on 
strike?


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN






--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN


--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: IEF211I - DATA SET RESERVATION UNSUCCESSFUL on relative GDG

[Scott Ballentine]

This was actually kind of fun to dig into... I knew a lot of what was going on 
here, but I had to try it out myself to put all of the puzzle pieces together.

I'm far from being an expert on ENQ, so I don't know all of the reasons why ENQ 
upgrade behaves the way it does.  But deadlocks are at least part of the 
reason.  It doesn't take a lot of effort to come up with some scenarios where 
ENQ would have to fail an upgrade request, such as two shared holders both 
requesting upgrade to exclusive.  At least one of them has to give up its 
shared access for anything to move forward.

And...
>And the lesson here is that if you have a job that requires a DISP=OLD on a 
>relative GDG in some step, then the only way to avoid the IEF211I is for
>the FIRST use of the same relative GDG to also be DISP=OLD.
I think that's right, that's the only way I can think of to definitively 
prevent it.  

-Scott Ballentine, IBM z/OS Device Allocation
sbal...@us.ibm.com

--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Non system LX value

[Joseph Reichman]

Hi 

I have been looking over syncrounes cross memory or PC rtn’s 

What I seem to be missing is where you want to make that service available to 
certain address spaces 

So you code on the LXRES SYSTEM=NO 

But I don’t see any where where you specify an asid indicating what address 
space you want to provide this service to 

Thanks
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Re: zOSMF install - SDSF ISFPRMxx

[Rob Scott]

Peter

The latest APAR for the new sample and REXX is :

PH55420

Included is a starter set sequence of RACF commands to implement a simple SDSF 
security setup assuming three types of users : sysprogs, operators and general 
users.
Also included is a REXX exec that takes SDSF “NTBL/NTBLENT” statements from 
ISFPRMxx and converts them to profile definitions for JESSPOOL resources.

We find that the above is sufficient for most customers to get started.

All SDSF presentations from Share and GSE can be found at the IBM education 
github :

https://github.com/IBM/IBM-Z-zOS/tree/main/zOS-Education/

Checkout the 2.5 and 3.1 folders and look for the “SDSF Security – How does it 
work on z/OS 2.5+” slide deck.

We also found that once customers understand what SDSF is doing under the 
covers for the various panels and actions, the migration makes much more sense.

I hope the above is helpful

Rob Scott
Rocket Software

From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List  On Behalf Of 
Peter
Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 4:09 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: zOSMF install - SDSF ISFPRMxx

EXTERNAL EMAIL



Well I was able to find a utility developed by rocket software ISFACR and
it helped me to generate some commands which were required as part of my
migration

found that already my system had OPERCMDS enabled but other Classes were
not activated.

The generated command also deletes the existing OPERCMDS profile which I
will skip and run others if it is required



On Sun, Dec 3, 2023, 8:39 AM Peter 
mailto:dbajava...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Hello Rob
>
> Thank you so much for your response
>
> Could you please point to your presentation on migrating off from ISFPRMXX
> to RACF ?
>
> Fortunately our shop is very small and we don't have any archiving tool or
> any automation tool.
>
> Peter
>
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023, 9:55 PM Rob Scott 
> mailto:rsc...@rocketsoftware.com>> wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> Can I strongly suggest you instigate a project to activate OPERCMDS (and
>> JESSPOOL if not already active).
>>
>> ISFPRMx just controls actions within SDSF and does not preclude any
>> semi-capable programmer from writing code to issue operator commands (or
>> access SYSOUT using the JES SSI).
>>
>> Starting with z/OS 2 5, SDSF no longer uses ISFPRMxx to control security
>> as everything now only goes through SAF authority. We use the SDSF class
>> for product controls, and also make OPERCMDS and JESSPOOL checks on the
>> user's behalf when processing actions taken within the product.
>>
>> Please be aware that converting your systems to correctly use OPERCMDS
>> and JESSPOOL can be a lengthy process, and you should allow many weeks for
>> testing and validation.
>>
>> The OPERCMDS and JESSPOOL classes being activated can affect a broad
>> range of other products including sysout archiving and automated operations.
>>
>> I do have some presentations about SDSF security and can point you in the
>> right direction if you want.
>>
>> As a further note, the old ISFACR tool that was written 25+ years ago to
>> aid in SAF security migration is showing its age a bit. We have some more
>> recent (and much simpler) tools and processes now.
>>
>> Rob Scott
>> Rocket Software
>>
>> Sent from Samsung Mobile on O2
>> Sent from Outlook for Android>
>> 
>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List 
>> mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>> on behalf
>> of Peter mailto:dbajava...@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2023 9:31:26 AM
>> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU 
>> mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU>>
>> Subject: zOSMF install - SDSF ISFPRMxx
>>
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello All
>>
>> Good morning
>>
>> I have planned to install zOSMF in our test LPAR. Our SDSF uses its own
>> security features using ISFPRMXX and I can see zOSMF has its own IZUSEC
>> jobs where it activates OPERCMDS class. We never activated OPERCMDS
>> instead
>> we manage using ISFPRMXX PARMLIB member.
>>
>> Is there anyone who have installed zOSMF with above scenario?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
>> send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with 
>> the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
>>
>>
>> 
>> Rocket Software, Inc. and subsidiaries ? 77 Fourth Avenue, Waltham MA
>> 02451 ? Main Office Toll Free Number: +1 855.577.4323
>> Contact Customer Support:
>> https://my.rocketsoftware.com/RocketCommunity/RCEmailSupport
>> Unsubscribe from Marketing Messages/Manage Your Subscription Preferences
>> - 
>> http://www.rocketsoftware.com/manage-your-email-preferences
>> Privacy Policy -
>>