Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!agate!shelby!neon!news From: andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: In What Sense is Sun the "First" Open Systems Manufacturer? Message-ID: <1990Nov21.194240.28355@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Date: 21 Nov 90 19:42:40 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Nov20.195623.28061@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2940@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 48 In article <2940@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1990Nov20.195623.28061@Neon.Stanford.EDU> andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes: >| While they didn't have to be sued into doing it Sun, with SPARC, has >| done what IBM did decades ago with their 360/370 machines. Both allow >| others to produce hardware compatible systems. > > Where did you get the info? I didn't realize that IBM gave Amdahl and >the others the plans for their CPU and let them make it. Actually I >thought they were reverse engineered. Either IBM's lawyers are worse than almost every other manufacturers, or IBM allowed the 360/370 clone makers to exist. Sun helps more, but that's a difference of degree. >Does the license to manufacture include the right to use the software, >like SPARC? I don't know whether or not IBM will license its software to run on non-IBM hardware, but 3rd party suppliers will. The clone makers provide enough to make it reasonable for a customer to buy a 360/370 that isn't blue, so IBM proprietary software hasn't closed the market. To the extent that Sun licenses everything they write to run on non-Sun hardware, sun is merely discouraging competition on it. Note that there isn't a VMS clone for non-Dec vaxen. >| In what sense is Sun "first", let alone "unique"? What is its equiv >| of the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin? Hint: disclosure via source >| code is convenient, but it isn't a guarantee of future compatibility. >| Considering the bugs in the distributed version, it isn't even a >| guarantee of current compatibility. > > Bear in mind the the TDB is intended to protect IBM, not benefit the >public. Not that it isn't useful, but it's not a gesture of goodwill. >The basic idea is that once IBM decides they can't make money by using >or licensing an idea, they tell the world, so no one else can patent it. >A cheap way to assure that if they ever do decide to use it they won't >have to pay for it. It may be in IBM's best interests, but I wonder why other computer companies don't see things the same way. -andy -- UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy ARPA: andy@neon.stanford.edu BELLNET: (415) 723-3088