|
Leif wrote: >> processing capability that you purchased be any different ethically than >> buying 100 licenses of [insert your favorite software here] to run on 200 >> computers? <running for cover> > >wouldn't that same argument not also apply to Joe Pluta's method of >"re-engineering programs to remove the 5250 I/O" and get the same >interactive capability but without 5250? > >Presumably true "interactive" capability is measured in service >given to users interacting directly with the system. The interactive >tax should really be called a 5250 tax. Also I believe the difference lies in the way IBM represent the processing limit. AIUI they sell you a box with an interactive rating of X. They do not explicitly sell you a box with a rating of X+Y of which you are bound by licence not to use more than X. If I buy a car with a governor on it and a condition of sale is that I do not tamper with the governor then I am morally (at least) bound by that condition. If, however, I simply buy a car that has a stated top speed of X and attached to the engine I discover an interesting little gadget which I carefully adjust with a hammer (my car remember) and I find the top speed is now X+Y have I cheated the car manufacturer? Dave... ======================================================= The opinions expressed in this communication are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.