Slashdot Mirror

Yes; http://www.turbohercules.com/. Near and dear to my heart is the CDC Cyber series on which I had to run my COBOL assignments at uni; http://members.iinet.net.au/~tom-hunter/. Anyone also do assignments on PDP 11/70's as I did also? http://www.dbit.com/. Christ, I bet there's an emulator for any platform and architecture that's existed.

"TurboHercules SAS (“TurboHercules”) operates the TurboHercules.com Web site. You have the right to use the Web site and download material from this Web site for your personal, noncommercial use. Material may be purchased and downloaded for commercial use, subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable end user license agreement link

"The Q Public License (QPL) is a non-copyleft license, created by Trolltech for its free edition of the Qt. It is incompatible with the GPL, meaning that you cannot legally distribute products derived from both GPL'ed and QPL'ed code link

IBM should take a leaf from the Microsoft litigation manual and threaten to sue TurboHercules end users.

A) You can be more than one thing. I say he's a reporter because he's reporting on the story. I note that you say 'lobbyist' but forget what he lobbied for: he lobbied *against software patents* Which is why I don't understand PJ's sudden apology for them, trying to make these claims in IBM's patents, which cover software running on otherwise non-infringing hardware, as being anything but software patents. I mean, she really did say something to the effect of "there's hardware in there too" without bothering to explain why that's relevant or how TH could possibly infringe upon those given that they do not, in fact, manufacture any hardware.

B) I read that other story. PJ buried plenty of facts (like the CCIA/Red Hat link) until people made a big stink about it (she finally let through some anon who posted it, after telling people to quit posting it).

I didn't say that she buried the story, only the facts she didn't like. And I've given you specific facts which got moderated out of existence.

C) You quoted Groklaw saying, in part: "So, why doesn't Florian and the folks he is lobbying for release the earlier letter from Bowler, in which he apparently expressed that he was unaware that "IBM has intellectual property rights in this area"?"

This is wrong on so many levels.

ONE is that Florian didn't release the letters, though he did link to them and report on them (the letters are on turbohercules.com, Florian's site is fosspatents.blogspot.com please check your facts next time).

TWO is that Florian isn't doing any lobbying work in this case (please provide documentation, not mere allegations, if you believe otherwise). If reporting someone's side of the story is "lobbying" now, I'm going to have to refer to PJ as an "IBM lobbyist" (i.e. someone who lobbies on IBM's behalf), because we're no longer requiring that a lobbyist be paid by the organization they support if you want to say that he's a TH lobbyist.

THREE they certainly DID release the letters PJ complains about them not having released, so the information there (and the allegations of contradiction) are old and incorrect (this was back when we had letters #3 & #4 only; letters #1 & #2 were released later).

In short, PJ rushed to judgment and got the facts all wrong because she didn't wait to hear the whole story. Just like you. Now you're parroting old, outdated information that never got properly updated, that chides them for not releasing letters which they DID release (and which I've linked for you), allegations of contradiction which are NOT borne out when you check the dates on when they were written and realize that IBM disclosed the patents in question after they complained that they had not.

So... if Florian is all "spin" for having gotten the whole story and having reported on it, what shall I say of PJ, who rushed to judgment and has a page full of inaccurate statements which she has not bothered to update (in spite of having issued MANY updates for other reasons)?

PJ is entitled to her own opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts. Please go examine the dates that things were written and compare them to the dates on the letters. They don't add up because the cart got put before the horse. People learned of the last two letters first, only to make all sorts of accusations that turned out to be untrue (which they won't retract now that they've been proven wrong). Which is sad, because back in the SCO days, we gave even SCO a chance to prove things.

Nowadays, she resorts to smear jobs that she learned how to do from watching SCO. I mean, she writes things like, "[b]ut if you wanted

A) You can be more than one thing. I say he's a reporter because he's reporting on the story. I note that you say 'lobbyist' but forget what he lobbied for: he lobbied *against software patents* Which is why I don't understand PJ's sudden apology for them, trying to make these claims in IBM's patents, which cover software running on otherwise non-infringing hardware, as being anything but software patents. I mean, she really did say something to the effect of "there's hardware in there too" without bothering to explain why that's relevant or how TH could possibly infringe upon those given that they do not, in fact, manufacture any hardware.

B) I read that other story. PJ buried plenty of facts (like the CCIA/Red Hat link) until people made a big stink about it (she finally let through some anon who posted it, after telling people to quit posting it).

I didn't say that she buried the story, only the facts she didn't like. And I've given you specific facts which got moderated out of existence.

C) You quoted Groklaw saying, in part: "So, why doesn't Florian and the folks he is lobbying for release the earlier letter from Bowler, in which he apparently expressed that he was unaware that "IBM has intellectual property rights in this area"?"

This is wrong on so many levels.

ONE is that Florian didn't release the letters, though he did link to them and report on them (the letters are on turbohercules.com, Florian's site is fosspatents.blogspot.com please check your facts next time).

TWO is that Florian isn't doing any lobbying work in this case (please provide documentation, not mere allegations, if you believe otherwise). If reporting someone's side of the story is "lobbying" now, I'm going to have to refer to PJ as an "IBM lobbyist" (i.e. someone who lobbies on IBM's behalf), because we're no longer requiring that a lobbyist be paid by the organization they support if you want to say that he's a TH lobbyist.

THREE they certainly DID release the letters PJ complains about them not having released, so the information there (and the allegations of contradiction) are old and incorrect (this was back when we had letters #3 & #4 only; letters #1 & #2 were released later).

In short, PJ rushed to judgment and got the facts all wrong because she didn't wait to hear the whole story. Just like you. Now you're parroting old, outdated information that never got properly updated, that chides them for not releasing letters which they DID release (and which I've linked for you), allegations of contradiction which are NOT borne out when you check the dates on when they were written and realize that IBM disclosed the patents in question after they complained that they had not.

So... if Florian is all "spin" for having gotten the whole story and having reported on it, what shall I say of PJ, who rushed to judgment and has a page full of inaccurate statements which she has not bothered to update (in spite of having issued MANY updates for other reasons)?

PJ is entitled to her own opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts. Please go examine the dates that things were written and compare them to the dates on the letters. They don't add up because the cart got put before the horse. People learned of the last two letters first, only to make all sorts of accusations that turned out to be untrue (which they won't retract now that they've been proven wrong). Which is sad, because back in the SCO days, we gave even SCO a chance to prove things.

Nowadays, she resorts to smear jobs that she learned how to do from watching SCO. I mean, she writes things like, "[b]ut if you wanted

A) You can be more than one thing. I say he's a reporter because he's reporting on the story. I note that you say 'lobbyist' but forget what he lobbied for: he lobbied *against software patents* Which is why I don't understand PJ's sudden apology for them, trying to make these claims in IBM's patents, which cover software running on otherwise non-infringing hardware, as being anything but software patents. I mean, she really did say something to the effect of "there's hardware in there too" without bothering to explain why that's relevant or how TH could possibly infringe upon those given that they do not, in fact, manufacture any hardware.

B) I read that other story. PJ buried plenty of facts (like the CCIA/Red Hat link) until people made a big stink about it (she finally let through some anon who posted it, after telling people to quit posting it).

I didn't say that she buried the story, only the facts she didn't like. And I've given you specific facts which got moderated out of existence.

C) You quoted Groklaw saying, in part: "So, why doesn't Florian and the folks he is lobbying for release the earlier letter from Bowler, in which he apparently expressed that he was unaware that "IBM has intellectual property rights in this area"?"

This is wrong on so many levels.

ONE is that Florian didn't release the letters, though he did link to them and report on them (the letters are on turbohercules.com, Florian's site is fosspatents.blogspot.com please check your facts next time).

TWO is that Florian isn't doing any lobbying work in this case (please provide documentation, not mere allegations, if you believe otherwise). If reporting someone's side of the story is "lobbying" now, I'm going to have to refer to PJ as an "IBM lobbyist" (i.e. someone who lobbies on IBM's behalf), because we're no longer requiring that a lobbyist be paid by the organization they support if you want to say that he's a TH lobbyist.

THREE they certainly DID release the letters PJ complains about them not having released, so the information there (and the allegations of contradiction) are old and incorrect (this was back when we had letters #3 & #4 only; letters #1 & #2 were released later).

In short, PJ rushed to judgment and got the facts all wrong because she didn't wait to hear the whole story. Just like you. Now you're parroting old, outdated information that never got properly updated, that chides them for not releasing letters which they DID release (and which I've linked for you), allegations of contradiction which are NOT borne out when you check the dates on when they were written and realize that IBM disclosed the patents in question after they complained that they had not.

So... if Florian is all "spin" for having gotten the whole story and having reported on it, what shall I say of PJ, who rushed to judgment and has a page full of inaccurate statements which she has not bothered to update (in spite of having issued MANY updates for other reasons)?

PJ is entitled to her own opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts. Please go examine the dates that things were written and compare them to the dates on the letters. They don't add up because the cart got put before the horse. People learned of the last two letters first, only to make all sorts of accusations that turned out to be untrue (which they won't retract now that they've been proven wrong). Which is sad, because back in the SCO days, we gave even SCO a chance to prove things.

Nowadays, she resorts to smear jobs that she learned how to do from watching SCO. I mean, she writes things like, "[b]ut if you wanted

A) You can be more than one thing. I say he's a reporter because he's reporting on the story. I note that you say 'lobbyist' but forget what he lobbied for: he lobbied *against software patents* Which is why I don't understand PJ's sudden apology for them, trying to make these claims in IBM's patents, which cover software running on otherwise non-infringing hardware, as being anything but software patents. I mean, she really did say something to the effect of "there's hardware in there too" without bothering to explain why that's relevant or how TH could possibly infringe upon those given that they do not, in fact, manufacture any hardware.

B) I read that other story. PJ buried plenty of facts (like the CCIA/Red Hat link) until people made a big stink about it (she finally let through some anon who posted it, after telling people to quit posting it).

I didn't say that she buried the story, only the facts she didn't like. And I've given you specific facts which got moderated out of existence.

C) You quoted Groklaw saying, in part: "So, why doesn't Florian and the folks he is lobbying for release the earlier letter from Bowler, in which he apparently expressed that he was unaware that "IBM has intellectual property rights in this area"?"

This is wrong on so many levels.

ONE is that Florian didn't release the letters, though he did link to them and report on them (the letters are on turbohercules.com, Florian's site is fosspatents.blogspot.com please check your facts next time).

TWO is that Florian isn't doing any lobbying work in this case (please provide documentation, not mere allegations, if you believe otherwise). If reporting someone's side of the story is "lobbying" now, I'm going to have to refer to PJ as an "IBM lobbyist" (i.e. someone who lobbies on IBM's behalf), because we're no longer requiring that a lobbyist be paid by the organization they support if you want to say that he's a TH lobbyist.

THREE they certainly DID release the letters PJ complains about them not having released, so the information there (and the allegations of contradiction) are old and incorrect (this was back when we had letters #3 & #4 only; letters #1 & #2 were released later).

In short, PJ rushed to judgment and got the facts all wrong because she didn't wait to hear the whole story. Just like you. Now you're parroting old, outdated information that never got properly updated, that chides them for not releasing letters which they DID release (and which I've linked for you), allegations of contradiction which are NOT borne out when you check the dates on when they were written and realize that IBM disclosed the patents in question after they complained that they had not.

So... if Florian is all "spin" for having gotten the whole story and having reported on it, what shall I say of PJ, who rushed to judgment and has a page full of inaccurate statements which she has not bothered to update (in spite of having issued MANY updates for other reasons)?

PJ is entitled to her own opinion, but she's not entitled to her own facts. Please go examine the dates that things were written and compare them to the dates on the letters. They don't add up because the cart got put before the horse. People learned of the last two letters first, only to make all sorts of accusations that turned out to be untrue (which they won't retract now that they've been proven wrong). Which is sad, because back in the SCO days, we gave even SCO a chance to prove things.

Nowadays, she resorts to smear jobs that she learned how to do from watching SCO. I mean, she writes things like, "[b]ut if you wanted

> I admit no such thing. First, I do not believe that a private conversation (which these letters were) between two parties in any way shape or form can constitute an 'attack' on a third party, absent some actual action against the third party.

You don't seem to understand what an admission is. You don't get to play Humpty-Dumpty and pretend that your words mean something other than what you say. The plain meanings of your words say things you, apparently, did not intend to. Thus, they are admissions.

Now then, as I said, it was FUD. Fear, uncertainty & doubt. They have fear, because they believe that IBM doesn't like them. They have uncertainty because they don't know, exactly, what IBM will do, only what they might do. They have doubt because there's good reason to doubt that they could face IBM's lawyers without significant expenditures. If you read the letters, the disclosure in French at the bottom shows that they're a company with very little money.

> Secondly, your treatment of the word infringement strikes me as the same way some people treat the word cancer - if it not said out loud then it doesn't exist. IBM saying that Hercules infringes their patents is not what makes it infringe, and IBM not saying it infringes their patents does not make it non-infringing. The only two things that matter are: does it actually infringe (IBM thinks so and I am not aware of any claims to the contrary), and has IBM done anything about it (no).

You can elect not to sue infringers, you cannot elect not to have cancer. If you remember, the Linux kernel also infringed many of those IBM patents, which is why IBM wrote that pledge, removing the infringement.

> You can rail against 'software' (which these aren't) patents all you want, but in this case patents did exactly what they were supposed to - encourage progress and keep out freeloaders.

Well, "software patent" is a vague term, so I'm going to define them as "patents containing claims that read on software, even when that software is running on hardware that, but for the software, would not be infringing." If you disagree with that definition, please give me your own, but I have to believe that if you have a piece of commodity hardware that isn't infringing upon the patent and if you add software to that non-infringing hardware and suddenly come up with a device that infringes some claim in a patent, you have a software patent. Because we've already decided that the hardware isn't infringing, it must be the software that is. Now, you could try to say that it's the combination of the two that's infringing, I suppose, but that makes no sense, because software needs hardware to run it.

So, how can a piece of software infringe upon them if these aren't software patents? Given that TurboHercules buys commodity hardware, how the hell can it infringe upon any of the hardware patent claims? Either everyone who buys ordinary computers infringes upon IBM patents (and IBM should be going to the hardware makers to hammer out a cross-licensing agreement), or they license them to Intel & co. and the patents are exhausted.

And there most certainly are software patents in there (that is, there are patent claims which appear to cover software). Let's take a look at US Patent 5825627, shall we? It's #65 on the list IBM gave, for those following along at home.

In claim one, it covers, "A computer system capable of translating a plurality of non-native instructions to a plurality of native instructions" ... in short, it covers a computer system running software that translates one bytecode to another using a certain setup. Well, to be technical it doesn't care *how* the computer system does this, it merely covers any system "capable" of doing that, including both software

Sorry, but you are entirely incorrect. In the letter where the 173 patents are mentioned is a list of each and every patent, including the patent number and title of the patent. This letter is directly linked to in the Groklaw article.

Well, PJ did remove the letters (at least, the PDF-to-text of them). She doesn't have copies anywhere that I can see, actually. And doesn't she usually at least save information like that? Why does she avoid doing so now? Even if she didn't like that one, she could do her own, you know.

That comment is currently vanished, but I'll put the text up at the end of this comment.

For the record, I don't buy the Psystar bit, either. If it's a whole legal conspiracy to harm the rights of authors, why is Google Book Search not included, given that all the actual authors are up in arms because the settlement is opt-out not opt-in? No, I think Google is doing the right thing. But I have a hard time seeing someone go on about a conspiracy against the rights of authors who says Psystar is part of it and Google isn't, given that there's a huge difference between the scale of what they're doing.

Mind you, I prefer the free flow of information. That's why I support Google, Psystar, and TH's side of things.

It's also why I don't trust PJ for burying information like this when it suits her.

Here are the four letters as text, if anyone wants them.

Letter #1 from TurboHeracles to IBM, dated 29 July, 2009:
http://www.turbohercules.com/uploads/files/TH-letter-to-IBM-Europe-2009-07-29.pdf

TurboHercules
[address, telephone & email information redacted]

La Défense, le 29 juillet 2009
[ED: La Défense is a place in France. The date is July 29, written in French.]

Daniel Chaffraix, President
IBM France
Tour Descartes, La Défense 5,
2 avenue Gambetta
92400 Courbevoie, France

Dear Mr Chaffraix,

As President of the recently formed company TurboHercules S.A.S., I am writing to request your consideration for our innovative business model based on the IBM mainframe ecosystem. TurboHercules is the commercial arm of the open sources Heracles project--a software program that implements the instruction set of IBM mainframes on Intel-based servers such as IBM's System x products. I was the original creator of the Hercules emulator ten years ago. Since then it has been continuously updated by a talented, world-wide team of mainframe programmers.

TurboHercules is fully capable of running current versions of IBM's modern 64-bit operating systems such as z/OS, z/VM, and z/VSE as well as its older 31-bit and 24-bit operating systems. [ED: 31-bit is NOT a typo.] Unlike the old Plug Compatible Mainframes, TurboHercules' highly innovative mainframe-compatible systems are implemented with modern software virtualization techniques instead of hardware.

TurboHercules seeks to establish a commercial business that offers customers a choice in mainframe-compatible platforms, while contributing to the long-term health of the IBM mainframe ecosystem. Because the lasting success of the IBM mainframe platform is the prerequisite of our own success, it is very important to us to secure IBM's approval for our business model.

Specifically, we would like you to consider making available to your mainframe customers a license for IBM operating systems on the TurboHercules platform. TurboHercules S.A.S., as the commercial entity, would provide support for a complete turnkey system based on these licenses. The pricing, conditions and limitations of that license would be at the sold discretion of IBM on reasonable and fair terms. We propose to focus on the secondary workloads such as training, demonstrations, pre- and post-processing, data prepa

Except that if you read IBM's original letter http://www.turbohercules.com/uploads/files/AnzaniLetterTurboHercules-2009-11-04.pdf it makes it clear that the beef IBM has isn't with Turbo Hercules supporting any open source project, but with changing the licensing of z/OS.

Not quite. They not only refuse permission to license z/OS, in addition they claim that any emulation of System Z infringes on their intellectual property - including Hercules. Doesn't matter if you're running z/OS or Linux, it ain't allowed.

It's the same thing as if some open-source project needs Windows DLLs - there's NOTHING requiring Microsoft to license them, and saying no is not an attack on open source.

If anything, it'd be more like if Microsoft refused to license Office and other Microsoft applications to run outside of Windows - the two are distinct products that have been artificially tied. Microsoft haven't tried this (probably because they've had enough antitrust attention already) and there are companies making money from selling ways to run Microsoft Office under Linux.

He made the obvious point that threatening companies offering commercial support for an open source project by claiming said project is illegal is effectively an attack on that project. Does that count as "making an ass of yourself" now? Or maybe it's the fact he dared to contradict PJ by doing so that makes him an ass?

Except that if you read IBM's original letter http://www.turbohercules.com/uploads/files/AnzaniLetterTurboHercules-2009-11-04.pdf it makes it clear that the beef IBM has isn't with Turbo Hercules supporting any open source project, but with changing the licensing of z/OS.

It's the same thing as if some open-source project needs Windows DLLs - there's NOTHING requiring Microsoft to license them, and saying no is not an attack on open source.

Open-source projects that need to violate proprietary licenses don't deserve support - they're not truly open source to begin with.

z/OS is proprietary. Turbo Hercules wants to support z/OS in scenarios that violate IBMs license. Not going to happen, and it has nothing to do with patents or "selling commercial support."

I don't know why anyone would remove the letters - the second on http://www.turbohercules.com/uploads/files/AnzaniLetterTurboHercules-2009-11-04.pdf (the original reply from IBM) lays out the case quite clearly - that IBM doesn't want to change the licensing of z/OS to accommodate the business plans of Turbo Hercules - and that is their right.

Forget the patents, forget the fud - that alone is enough to kill Turbo Hercules as a business, without ANY sort of attack on F/LOSS, including Hercules.

It's Psystar all over again.

Fiction: "Concerning IBM, its actions against an 11-year old free and open source software project speak for themselves."

Fact: IBM has not sued Hercules.

Fact: Turbo Hercules - an attempt to monetize the use of Hercules in what appears to be an infringement of IBM's z/OS license, is not Hercules.

OK, so where did they ask IBM for FRAND licenses and get rejected? AFAIK, there has not been even a hint of a suggestion anywhere that they did that.

In this blog posting you can find links to all four letters. The first one says toward the bottom of page 1: "The pricing, conditions and limitations of that license would be at the sole discretion of IBM on reasonable and fair terms.

Instead, they make statements like they think it is 'unlikely' that IBM, a company which proudly touts it's investments and patents, would have any IP relating to it's flagship hardware and architecture.

I'm not aware of any such "unlikely" statement by TurboHercules. In their second letter they said they were surprised to be told that their platform infringes any IBM intellectual property. They had reasons to be surprised, given that the Hercules project started in 1999 and IBM even mentioned it in one of its RedBooks a few years later, and that throughout all those years IBM never indicated any IP issue.

Of course IBM talks a lot about its patents. I discussed IBM's overall approach to patents, and patent quality concerns, in this blog posting. But the fact that IBM has lots of patents doesn't necessarily mean that Hercules infringes any of them.

I think it's very strange that IBM on the one hand claims to be a major proponent and benefactor of open source and then uses patents to threaten an open source startup and, effectively, an 11-year old open source project. By contrast, look at the quote from Google's chief lawyer in this blog posting: "anyone using patents against open source is a bad idea -- you won't see us do it"