On 4/8/2010 12:41 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
I figured something like that was going on. I smelled
a rat when I saw
it on slashdot. It didn't make any sense. Thanks for posting.
On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com> wrote:
Eric Smith wrote:
It is important to observe that there is a huge
distinction between
Hercules, an open-source project, and TurboHercules, a commercial
entity
selling a commercial, non-open-source software package derived from
Hercules.
Not only that, but Hercules (the open source) is specifically used
with IBM operating systems for which licensing isn't commercial.
(Read: older stuff) TurboHercules is trying to provide alternate
means of running IBM's *current* software. One is attacking IBM's
bottom line, and one isn't. TurboHercules is trying to take
advantage of IBM's generosity in allowing the open source community
use of its patents to attack IBM's business.
Peace... Sridhar
Turbohercules has as one its major participants Roger Bowler. TH is not
asking to steal or take advantage of anything for free. All they are
asking is that IBM grant a license (not free) to run on their
implementation (non ibm Z series hardware, but quite possibly IBM
hardware base) for a narrow business case. Others would have to proceed
into other areas on their own dime at their own risk.
So the latter sentence is a bit of a stretch to understand. The
Hercules community is certainly not out to piss off IBM as you said in
the first part of your statement, but it is not accurate to portray them
as the other effort, PSI.
Apologies to the group for this posting, but I had to reply to what
sounds a bit distorted. Much better place for this comment would be
over on the Hercules-advocacy group on yahoo, won't comment again on
this here.
I really like Hercules as it hits the center of what my main interest is
in classic computing these days, emulations, and vintage software. I
certainly hope this does not turn out to be a misstep that hits Hercules
with a backlash from IBM.
Jim