So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now?

So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now?

You made a long and thoughtful comment and raised many questions. My comments:

1. IBM, in their initial response didn't assert patent infringment upon the Hercules project in general. They were suggesting that TurboHercules' implementation of the emulation would be infringing

TurboHercules's implementation is 100% the same software the Hercules open source emulator. We're not talking about a different emulator.

In its first reply to TurboHercules, IBM wrote: (quote) First, you state that Turbo "implements the instruction set of IBM mainframes on Intel-based servers". We think that mimicking IBM's proprietary, 64-bit System z architecture requires IBM intellectual property, and you will understand that IBM could not reasonably be asked to consider licensing its operating systems for use on infringing platforms. (end quote) While the word "Turbo" appears there, absolutely everything that is said -- the implementation of the instruction set of the mainframe CPU on Intel-based servers -- relates to the Hercules open source emulator.

The maintainer of the Hercules open source project, Jay Maynard, explained this on his blog as well.

In IBM's licensing agreement (from my understanding [...]), you are allowed to emulate their OS on non-IBM hardware for certain limited uses (disaster recovery, for example). TurboHercules wants to expand that (and change the licensing agreement) to mean that you can run their OS on non-IBM hardware for any reason at all.

It's correct that TurboHercules asked for a license agreement in order to run z/OS in emulation for more use cases than disaster recovery.

But that's nothing I was overlooking, although you listed it as one of three items I allegedly didn't tell. For an example, my blog posting on the correspondence between the two companies also put this into the context. My very first blog posting on the TurboHercules matter also explained this very clearly: (quote) Hercules just wants to provide customers with an interesting and much-needed choice. In order to do so, Hercules is simply seeking a way that its customers will be allowed to run IBM's z/OS mainframe operating system on Hercules. IBM generally does not allow its customers to run z/OS (hence also the application software those customers internally developed on top of it for trilions of dollars) on non-IBM hardware. When Roger asked IBM for a solution, IBM turned him down and accused Hercules of infringement of intellectual property rights. (end quote) And here on LWN, I explained on several occasions what the antitrust case is about: it's all about the untying of IBM hardware from the z/OS operating system, in particular in connection with emulation.

it's like people saying that it's Microsoft's fault that their video card broke. Or more accurately (since this is an Open Source forum), it's like people bitching that it's Ubuntu's fault that their ATI video cards don't work properly (when it's AMD that won't provide the proper drivers for the card).

That's part of one of several reasons IBM gave for turning down the request.

It's just a cheap excuse that IBM uses. If people run Windows on virtualization platforms, it may also behave differently than if it resides directly on top of the hardware. Or to address the case that affects almost all of us programmers: if we write something for an operating system, possibly along with other underlying components (database etc.), we have to support our customers (to the extent we're reasonably responsible) although our software isn't "alone" in the system.

Note that TurboHercules had not said anything in its letter to IBM about the details of IBM's obligations. TH had only asked for licensing terms in IBM's discretions but fair and reasonable (which is what a monopolist has to be under antitrust rules). In my opinion, "fair and reasonable" obviously means that IBM wouldn't have to end up accepting responsibility for the inner workings of the Hercules emulator.

I don't think that Microsoft is necessarily behind every bad thing in the world (but I do think that as far as tech goes, they aren't upset when the bad things happen to their competitors-- just like any company wouldn't be upset).

That's where you phrase things in a balanced way but PJ doesn't. The one reason for which I oppose irrational Microsoft paranoia is that if you look the collective power of its key competitors (you could just add up the market capitalizations of those to get an idea that collectively they're several times as powerful as Microsoft), and if you consider that those also commit pretty serious wrongdoings all the time, then it's important to look at all the issues in the industry, emanating from all sources, so as not to be distracted by a bogeyman that actually hasn't become more powerful in about a decade and that has over the last 10+ years had its defining moments in antitrust. Others are yet to experience that, and IBM got off the hook of the 1950's Consent Decree around 2000 and needs to be reminded now.

She puts up the facts. She links to them, so you can read them for yourself. You are free to form your own conclusions, whether they agree with hers or not. But, she's also free to post her opinions about the facts.

I also link to material I comment on. Nevertheless it's legitimate to criticize someone for out-of-context quoting and gross distortions that are of a nature that an honest activist in her quest for the truth wouldn't make but only someone who's not independent, be it in terms of independent thinking to have reasonable views or otherwise. Linking to the truth isn't enough because most people don't even click through (click-through rates on the Internet are low and everyone knows it).

Just an example: in connection with the IBM patent pledge, she started off with something that's utterly disgraceful and no honest FOSS person would do that, only a propagandist of the kind you find (or in the past found) in totalitarian regimes. Frankly, the Iraqi Information Minister was much more honorable with his absurdities than PJ is. So here's just one example of dishonest, undoubtedly intentional propaganda. Her propaganda regarding TurboHercules started with this:

(Groklie quote) IBM, when it announced the patent pledge, specifically reserved the right to defend itself from attack: "IBM has no intention of asserting its patent portfolio against the Linux kernel, unless of course we are forced to defend ourselves," said Nick Donofrio, senior vice president for technology and manufacturing, drawing applause in a speech at the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo. And in the TurboHercules story, who is suing whom? It's not IBM, folks. The complaint against IBM was filed with the EU Commission by TurboHercules. At that exact moment, did they not take themselves out from under the patent pledge's safety umbrella? So be it. (end Groklie quote)

So why is this a total Groklie, even though PJ provides links? She quoted from this ZDNet Article of 4 August 2004, but IBM's patent pledge was announced more than five months later on 11 January 2005 (check here or elsewhere on the Web). So she took an IBM statement related to something different -- use of patents against the Linux kernel -- and puts it purposely into a completely different context. If someone doesn't even click through to find out that those are two entirely different contexts, the quote even speaks for itself because it talks about someone's aggression against the Linux kernel and TurboHercules has nothing to do with that. Hercules runs on Linux, peacefully ;-)

By contrast, I told people the whole truth: IBM did have a defense clause in its January 2005 open source patent pledge, but there's no way it was triggered by anything TurboHercules did. In this posting I quote from the pledge and explain why. In a nutshell, there's one (and only one) defense clause in IBM's patent pledge. It relates to (i) IP (ii) litigation against (iii) open source. However, all that IBM and PJ could reference in terms of TurboHercules's activities is (i) antitrust [different field of law, entirely] (ii) complaint [just a filing with a regulator who will only pursue if in the public interest; not a court suit] against (iii) IBM [and in particular, its proprietary business].

Any one of the three differences would be enough on its own to make the defense clause in the pledge inapplicable. The combination of three makes it totally absurd to suggest they had a defense scenario under the pledge. Therefore the Groklie that IBM had made a very broadly-phrased exception in terms of defense. That broad "forced to defend" thing was before the pledge, and the language of the open source patent pledge makes it clear that the pledge stands on its own as a commitment. A commitment that IBM betrayed.

You can see that PJ was even alerted to that error in the comments. She didn't care. That's another strong indication that she's a propagandist, not an honest open source advocate. An honest person would at least admit the error and correct it, instead of continuing to start off a very long posting with a Groklie.

In the discussion on that page she even told the opposite of what the GPL stipulates in terms of selling GPL'd software. Since she talks about the GPL all the time, chances are she knows what the GPL says (and what gnu.org says about selling software). But if it's about defending IBM, then she doesn't care about the truth, really.

Finally, our moderator here on LWN asked to stop discussing Groklaw's editorial policy here. So please appreciate I won't comment on your last item here and now (but probably somewhere else, some other time). But regardless, I don't think you've lost your credibility here by simply triyng to find out about many aspects of a big issue.