Discussion:
Thoughts on VSI Community License Program
(too old to reply)
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-12 23:01:09 UTC
Permalink
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.

But I think we should look at the big picture.

HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.

VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.

Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.

So VSI has proven their good will.

Maybe the license mix is not optimal.

But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.

(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)

Arne
Chris Townley
2020-08-12 23:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.
But I think we should look at the big picture.
HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.
VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.
Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.
So VSI has proven their good will.
Maybe the license mix is not optimal.
But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.
(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)
Arne
Good comment. It is too easy to sit back and criticise

Credit where it is due!

Chris
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-12 23:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.
But I think we should look at the big picture.
HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.
VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.
Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.
So VSI has proven their good will.
Maybe the license mix is not optimal.
But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.
(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)
Arne
I hope my post today doesn't sound like whining, but I suppose it can be seen that way. I fully expect the VSI Community License program to evolve the way HP's Hobbyist program did over the years. My purpose was to document what was available. I know VSI did this in somewhat of a hurry, I think they expected up to another year before needing to roll this out. I'm hoping that the lack of compiler PAKs on the Integrity side is just an "oh, crap, we forgot those" thing since the install files are in the downloads. Perhaps the OpenVMS-BOE includes them, I have not worked with the VSI side before. I know HP's BOE did not.

If nobody says they want Integrity licenses for Clustering and Disk Shadowing, then VSI will never know that we want it. I assume a good percentage of "serious" hobbyist will want them. After all, Clustering and even HBVS are two of the main pillars of what VAX/VMS - VMS - OpenVMS are all about. Looking at the VSI SPD for OpenVMS it seems that the HAOE gets you clustering, disk shadowing and RMS Journaling. All of these were available previously so hopefully whatever reason it was behind not including it can be reversed.

I also know that talking about it here isn't the best channel in getting back to VSI. True many VSI people frequent here but I imagine emails to ***@vmssofware.com would be very helpful as well.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Dave Froble
2020-08-13 01:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Post by Arne Vajhøj
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.
But I think we should look at the big picture.
HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.
VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.
Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.
So VSI has proven their good will.
Maybe the license mix is not optimal.
But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.
(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)
Arne
I hope my post today doesn't sound like whining, but I suppose it can be
seen that way. I fully expect the VSI Community License program to
evolve the way HP's Hobbyist program did over the years. My purpose was
to document what was available. I know VSI did this in somewhat of a
hurry, I think they expected up to another year before needing to roll
this out. I'm hoping that the lack of compiler PAKs on the Integrity
side is just an "oh, crap, we forgot those" thing since the install
files are in the downloads. Perhaps the OpenVMS-BOE includes them, I
have not worked with the VSI side before. I know HP's BOE did not.
If nobody says they want Integrity licenses for Clustering and Disk
Shadowing, then VSI will never know that we want it. I assume a good
percentage of "serious" hobbyist will want them. After all, Clustering
and even HBVS are two of the main pillars of what VAX/VMS - VMS -
OpenVMS are all about. Looking at the VSI SPD for OpenVMS it seems that
the HAOE gets you clustering, disk shadowing and RMS Journaling. All of
these were available previously so hopefully whatever reason it was
behind not including it can be reversed.
I also know that talking about it here isn't the best channel in getting
back to VSI. True many VSI people frequent here but I imagine emails to
Just some thoughts.

If one feels that something is missing, definitely ask VSI. They don't
know unless you ask/tell them.

Regardless, my opinion is that VMS strengths should be shoved in front
of as many faces as possible.

Itanics seem a dime a dozen anymore, regardless, it's not something I'd
consider for a hobbyist / CL set-up. But so what, it's perfectly Ok for
others to want to do so.

I seem to recall a mention of "testing". If that is testing for a
commercial purpose, then a developer license would be appropriate, not a
CL license.

I'm a bit confused with the compiler licenses. I have Alpha licenses
from DEC, and they are still on the Alpha with the VSI V8.4-2L1 release.
Perhaps the DEC product and license is still good for a non-VMS
product on a VSI release. Not sure how DEC Basic, C, and such is
considered.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Robert A. Brooks
2020-08-13 02:14:01 UTC
Permalink
I'm a bit confused with the compiler licenses.  I have Alpha licenses from DEC,
and they are still on the Alpha with the VSI V8.4-2L1 release.  Perhaps the DEC
product and license is still good for a non-VMS product on a VSI release.  Not
sure how DEC Basic, C, and such is considered.
No non-VSI product is supported on a VSI release.
--
-- Rob
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-13 02:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Post by Arne Vajhøj
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.
But I think we should look at the big picture.
HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.
VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.
Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.
So VSI has proven their good will.
Maybe the license mix is not optimal.
But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.
(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)
Arne
I hope my post today doesn't sound like whining, but I suppose it can be
seen that way.  I fully expect the VSI Community License program to
evolve the way HP's Hobbyist program did over the years.  My purpose was
to document what was available.  I know VSI did this in somewhat of a
hurry, I think they expected up to another year before needing to roll
this out.  I'm hoping that the lack of compiler PAKs on the Integrity
side is just an "oh, crap, we forgot those" thing since the install
files are in the downloads.  Perhaps the OpenVMS-BOE includes them, I
have not worked with the VSI side before. I know HP's BOE did not.
If nobody says they want Integrity licenses for Clustering and Disk
Shadowing, then VSI will never know that we want it.  I assume a good
percentage of "serious" hobbyist will want them.  After all, Clustering
and even HBVS are two of the main pillars of what VAX/VMS - VMS -
OpenVMS are all about.  Looking at the VSI SPD for OpenVMS it seems that
the HAOE gets you clustering, disk shadowing and RMS Journaling.  All of
these were available previously so hopefully whatever reason it was
behind not including it can be reversed.
I also know that talking about it here isn't the best channel in getting
back to VSI.  True many VSI people frequent here but I imagine emails to
Just some thoughts.
If one feels that something is missing, definitely ask VSI.  They don't know unless you ask/tell them.
Regardless, my opinion is that VMS strengths should be shoved in front of as many faces as possible.
Itanics seem a dime a dozen anymore, regardless, it's not something I'd consider for a hobbyist / CL set-up.  But so what, it's perfectly Ok for others to want to do so.
Itanium machines aren't that common, I'm talking about on EBay and Craigslist type places that most hobbyists are going to look. Prices have gone up in the past few years too. I got my ZX6000 4-5 years ago for around $300. Now you can't find one for less than $800 and it's a slow one. I have a RX2660 and I got it for around $500, now they are pushing $1000. There was that batch of RZ2600's that a salvage dealer was selling for $200 each about 10 years ago. I got two back then and gave them away when I moved. You can't find one now very often. I imagine when the x86 machines start selling then some will come available but that's going to be a while. I know Dave at Island has a bunch but he can't sell at hobbyist prices even if they are still 80% off what was HP list. You may have a poor opinion of the Itaniums but they're faster than just about any Alpha and if a Hobbyist could get one at a decent price they would.

Alphas are getting hard to fine, too on the used market. The 466MHz DS10's are selling int eh $700-$800 range and the 617MHz systems are higher. They are still commercially viable so there a number listed perpetually at $1800 but nobody's buying except for business that need one as a replacement. On Ebay they are rare. A DS15 or DS25 are extremely rare to see. The DS20's and other smaller, hobbyist friendly systems are rare, too. Whenever the x86 OpenVMS is available for hobbyists I expect it to be a boon since running it under a Hypervisor like VirtualBox or ESXi will allow any reasonbly well equipped x86 box to host.
Post by Dave Froble
I seem to recall a mention of "testing".  If that is testing for a commercial purpose, then a developer license would be appropriate, not a CL license.
True. I thought that myself. The ISV program is probably better suited. I thought VSI had mentioned it somewhere but I probably was reading more into Section 4 of the EULA than was VSI's intention.

"4. PARTICIPATION

In partial consideration of the license granted hereunder, you agree to provide reasonable participation in the online Software community forums, including without limitation such activities as answering questions and contributing articles and how-to videos to the Open VMS online Software community at https://forum.vmssoftware.com.
"
Post by Dave Froble
I'm a bit confused with the compiler licenses.  I have Alpha licenses from DEC, and they are still on the Alpha with the VSI V8.4-2L1 release.  Perhaps the DEC product and license is still good for a non-VMS product on a VSI release.  Not sure how DEC Basic, C, and such is considered.
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value. I think it's just an oversight on VSI's part and will be fixed at some point. It think I'm going to have to put the VSI versions on my ZX6000 since it's less of a loss to the cluster when it gets removed. At least then I can see what actually is included and what isn't rather than guessing
--
John H. Reinhardt
Simon Clubley
2020-08-13 12:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-13 12:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
Yeah. Typo. Thanks for pointing that out.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Dave Froble
2020-08-13 15:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date. No long term help there.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-14 14:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date.  No long term help there.
And many of us were not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.

bill
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-14 14:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date.  No long term help there.
And many of us were  not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.
bill
If you need them, let me know. Hari said we could send them to those that missed out after March/May.
--
John H. Reinhardt
bob.m...@gmail.com
2020-08-14 20:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date. No long term help there.
And many of us were not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.
bill
If you need them, let me know. Hari said we could send them to those that missed out after March/May.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Are you serious? I missed out because I didn't request the OpenVMS / Alpha licenses soon enough. My license expires September 2. If you are able, please send me a copy:.
Or let me know if you can't. Thanks.

Bob Mehlman
VMS user since 1985 or so.
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-14 21:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date. No long term help there.
And many of us were not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.
bill
If you need them, let me know. Hari said we could send them to those that missed out after March/May.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Are you serious? I missed out because I didn't request the OpenVMS / Alpha licenses soon enough. My license expires September 2. If you are able, please send me a copy:.
Or let me know if you can't. Thanks.
Bob Mehlman
VMS user since 1985 or so.
Same here, I assumed. I requested but apparently the cutoff was
very short and the unreliability of my Verizon DSL since the lockdown
kept me from doing it for several weeks.

If they don't care and said it was OK to share it, why not just post
it here?

bill
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-14 21:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date. No long term help there.
And many of us were not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.
bill
If you need them, let me know. Hari said we could send them to those that missed out after March/May.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Are you serious?  I missed out because I didn't request the OpenVMS / Alpha licenses soon enough.  My license expires September 2.  If you are able, please send me a copy:.
Or let me know if you can't.  Thanks.
Bob Mehlman
VMS user since 1985 or so.
Same here, I assumed.  I requested but apparently the cutoff was
very short and the unreliability of my Verizon DSL since the lockdown
kept me from doing it for several weeks.
If they don't care and said it was OK to share it, why not just post
it here?
bill
Because: of the last line in the email from Hari
*Sent:* Saturday, 7 March 2020 5:05 PM
*To:* <redacted>
*Subject:* RE: OpenVMS Hobbyist Notification
Hi <redacted>,
Good question. We did discuss this quite a bit here, and there are arguments on all sides.
We would rather the hobbyists asked us directly, so we have an idea of the true scale.
However, it would be common sense, if you worked closely with a few hobbyists, to forward the PAKs to them. As long as the number is small, given that the license validity is limited, it should be okay.
Best Regards,
Hari.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Chris Townley
2020-08-15 13:15:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
Even if the DEC/HP Hobbyist licenses work for them it's still terminating
on 1-JAN-2021 so it's of limited value.
The termination date of the extended HPE hobbyist licences that Hari sent
out is 1-Jan-2022, not 1-Jan-2021.
Simon.
It is still a "drop dead" date. No long term help there.
And many of us were not privy to the extended PAKs anyway.
bill
If you need them, let me know. Hari said we could send them to those that missed out after March/May.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Are you serious?  I missed out because I didn't request the OpenVMS / Alpha licenses soon enough.  My license expires September 2.  If you are able, please send me a copy:.
Or let me know if you can't.  Thanks.
Bob Mehlman
VMS user since 1985 or so.
Same here, I assumed.  I requested but apparently the cutoff was
very short and the unreliability of my Verizon DSL since the lockdown
kept me from doing it for several weeks.
If they don't care and said it was OK to share it, why not just post
it here?
bill
Because: of the last line in the email from Hari
*From:*OpenVMS Customer Lab [**]
*Sent:* Saturday, 7 March 2020 5:05 PM
*To:* <redacted>
*Subject:* RE: OpenVMS Hobbyist Notification
Hi <redacted>,
Good question. We did discuss this quite a bit here, and there are arguments on all sides.
We would rather the hobbyists asked us directly, so we have an idea of the true scale.
However, it would be common sense, if you worked closely with a few hobbyists, to forward the PAKs to them. As long as the number is small, given that the license validity is limited, it should be okay.
Best Regards,
Hari.
--
John H. Reinhardt
If you can, I would really like later dated AXP PAK - mine expire January 2021

Chris
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-13 15:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
I see a lot of posts about problems or potential problems.
But I think we should look at the big picture.
HPE killed the hobbyist program with very short notice.
VSI announced and started the new Community License Program pretty quickly.
Considering how many very important tasks VSI has at the moment,
then I consider that pretty impressive.
So VSI has proven their good will.
Maybe the license mix is not optimal.
But based on the past then I would expect VSI to listen to
suggestions when they do an evaluation in 1 or 3 or 6 months.
(excluding VAX licenses which seems to be a non-starter)
Arne
I hope my post today doesn't sound like whining, but I suppose it can be seen that way.  I fully expect the VSI Community License program to evolve the way HP's Hobbyist program did over the years.  My purpose was to document what was available.  I know VSI did this in somewhat of a hurry, I think they expected up to another year before needing to roll this out.  I'm hoping that the lack of compiler PAKs on the Integrity side is just an "oh, crap, we forgot those" thing since the install files are in the downloads.  Perhaps the OpenVMS-BOE includes them, I have not worked with the VSI side before. I know HP's BOE did not.
If nobody says they want Integrity licenses for Clustering and Disk Shadowing, then VSI will never know that we want it.  I assume a good percentage of "serious" hobbyist will want them.  After all, Clustering and even HBVS are two of the main pillars of what VAX/VMS - VMS - OpenVMS are all about.  Looking at the VSI SPD for OpenVMS it seems that the HAOE gets you clustering, disk shadowing and RMS Journaling.  All of these were available previously so hopefully whatever reason it was behind not including it can be reversed.
Hi John,
The reasoning behind this is that Integrity is the most current platform that OpenVMS is offered on at the moment. VMS Software wants to protect its intellectual property from commercial use this way, as shadowing and clustering are aimed at the enterprise-class systems since they provide more redundancy and fail safety.
Another reason behind this decision was that, although HPE provided full license PAK for Integrity at the time their hobbyist program was active, their license agreement was clearly forbidding its use on multiple machines, and although I've seen comments on comp.os.vms and other media saying that you could send them multiple requests and they provided a set of licenses for each of them, this will definitely not happen in case of VSI.
Still, we understand your arguments and have forwarded your comment to those who are responsible for the concept of this program.
Thank you,
Maxim Megalinskiy
VSI Training Team
I had to go check what he said about the HP license and I was surprised to see that it's true. It's in the PAK files that HP sent out. I suppose we never looked it over closely when HP took over the Hobbyist program.
$! LICENSE TERMS
$!
$! 1. GRANT
$!
$! Upon your qualification for this license and your signature on this
$! form, Hewlett Packard Enterprise("HPE") will grant you the
$! right to use OpenVMS on a single computer ("Licensed
$! Computer"). Use of the Licensed Computer is ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL
$! USES (e.g., home use). As such, you may not use the Licensed Computer
$! for any business purposes whatsoever, e.g., to develop applications
$! for resale, to do business accounting, etc.
$!
$! Your license will be granted upon the issuance of the license key.
$! Your rights to use the software and the license key are LIMITED TO ONE
$! YEAR from date of issuance of the license key.
$!
$! You may copy the Software into the local memory or storage device of
$! the specified quantity of computers. You may make a single archival
$! or back-up copy of the Software.
$!
$! You may NOT transfer your rights to use the Software, the Software
$! itself and the accompanying documentation including this License
$! Agreement.
$!
You will note in the first paragraph it does plainly state that HP "will grant you the right to use OpenVMS on a SINGLE computer". So I guess those of us running VMS clusters havbe been in technical violation of the agreement all this time. I've looked back as far as October 2003 (my first license from Montagar) and even those had the same clause, in fact it looks identical to the above with the exception of "Compaq" for "HPE".

I have also inquired about the lack of compiler license PAKs for Integrity and am awaiting an answer.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Simon Clubley
2020-08-13 17:10:07 UTC
Permalink
If they also don't allow clustering in the hobbyist licence for x86-64,
then that could be a really big mistake. People are more likely to check
out this new thing called VMS if it's got a unique selling point that they
can play with free of charge.

VMS style operating system level clustering combined with HBVS support
is still unique enough that it might attract people to learning how to
use it as a hobbyist and then compare it to other clustering solutions
they are aware of.

Take those things away and VMS doesn't really have anything unique over
what you can do elsewhere.
Post by John H. Reinhardt
I had to go check what he said about the HP license and I was surprised to see that it's true. It's in the PAK files that HP sent out. I suppose we never looked it over closely when HP took over the Hobbyist program.
How does that tie in with the text from HPE about how we don't have to
apply for a hobbyist licence for each machine we are running HPE VMS on ?

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-13 17:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
If they also don't allow clustering in the hobbyist licence for x86-64,
then that could be a really big mistake. People are more likely to check
out this new thing called VMS if it's got a unique selling point that they
can play with free of charge.
VMS style operating system level clustering combined with HBVS support
is still unique enough that it might attract people to learning how to
use it as a hobbyist and then compare it to other clustering solutions
they are aware of.
Take those things away and VMS doesn't really have anything unique over
what you can do elsewhere.
Post by John H. Reinhardt
I had to go check what he said about the HP license and I was surprised to see that it's true. It's in the PAK files that HP sent out. I suppose we never looked it over closely when HP took over the Hobbyist program.
How does that tie in with the text from HPE about how we don't have to
apply for a hobbyist licence for each machine we are running HPE VMS on ?
Simon.
John,
No need to register each system. You can use the PAKs I sent to you on all YOUR systems (they are not to be distributed to others).
This should be easier for you (and us).
Enjoy!
Regards,
/John
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:42 AM
To: Egolf, John
Subject: Re: [OpenVMS.org] Hobbyist Registration
Dear Mr Egof,
Thank you very much for your very quick response to my request for OpenVMS Hobbyist PAKs. I know the process isn't quite set up so I've just requested one for each of VAX/Alpha and Integrity. I wonder what the final process will be for people with multiple systems? I've been quite a collector and currently have 3 Alpha, 4 Integrity and a VAX
(Sim-11) systems that could be running. When David Cathey was doing registrations I would register each system separately but I don't want to overload anyone yet with multiple requests. If you have time (and there's no hurry) I'd appreciate a heads up.
Once again, thanks.
John H. Reinhardt
OpenVMS user since 1981
Where that leaves us, I don't know. I asked if there was a better place to make requests than the VSI Forum and am waiting on an answer. When I find out, I'll let people know so they can make their requests known. Maxim, the guy that seems to be in charge of the forum is in Chelyabinsk (according to his profile) so I don't expect an answer until tomorrow at the earliest.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-13 17:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
How does that tie in with the text from HPE about how we don't have to
apply for a hobbyist licence for each machine we are running HPE VMS on ?
I don't know, but I would guess that VSI copied the conditions in the
HPE license with modifications for today's lawyer-speak. In the file
that was sent out for the license each year it does clearly state that
it is for use on a single system. However, in 2012 when I HP took over
Post by Simon Clubley
No need to register each system. You can use the PAKs I sent to you
on all YOUR systems (they are not to be distributed to others).
In the old days, the OPENVMS-ALPHA hobbyist license was node specific,
so one did need one license per machine (at least if they were in the
same cluster). But since one could, and many did, apply for multiple
licenses, probably few if any were using the SAME LICENSE on more than
one machine. Later, the hobbyist licenses didn't need /INCLUDE so one
would work on all machines in a cluster. (Out of habit I applied for
one per node anyway.)

I think that it is fair to say that in the old days the copy-and-paste
terms were not completely appropriate, and those who asked were told
that it was OK to run a cluster (either with separate licenses for each
node or, later, with one for all). However, disallowing cluster for
Itanium (and presumably x86) seems deliberate. Whether one can apply
for several licenses for several (standalone) machines is another
question (though, technically, not necessary, of course), but if the
clustering PAK isn't there, clustering won't work, regardless of the
legal terms.
David Goodwin
2020-08-13 22:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Simon Clubley
If they also don't allow clustering in the hobbyist licence for x86-64,
then that could be a really big mistake. People are more likely to check
out this new thing called VMS if it's got a unique selling point that they
can play with free of charge.
VMS style operating system level clustering combined with HBVS support
is still unique enough that it might attract people to learning how to
use it as a hobbyist and then compare it to other clustering solutions
they are aware of.
Take those things away and VMS doesn't really have anything unique over
what you can do elsewhere.
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat piracy seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI should be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right now they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously look at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.

Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and software and is a potential VSI customer. The pool of OpenVMS experts and available software needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive with linux. VSI is not going to achieve that by inconveniencing the few enthusiasts they've inherited in an attempt to combat something that isn't and probably never will be a problem.
Post by Simon Clubley
Post by John H. Reinhardt
I had to go check what he said about the HP license and I was surprised to see that it's true. It's in the PAK files that HP sent out. I suppose we never looked it over closely when HP took over the Hobbyist program.
How does that tie in with the text from HPE about how we don't have to
apply for a hobbyist licence for each machine we are running HPE VMS on ?
I'd say the text from HPE superseded whatever was in the license agreement. When issuing the license HPE provided additional text saying you could use the one license on multiple nodes so it seems pretty clear that's OK to do.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-14 08:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.

Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better fo=
r VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating=
OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and software and i=
s a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?

It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-14 12:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better fo=
r VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating=
OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and software and i=
s a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
And before anyone starts to go down the pirate path let me link to:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319

Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.

But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.

:-)

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-08-14 15:28:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better fo=
r VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating=
OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and software and i=
s a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
Arne
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....

So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.

Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will cause
financial loss for VSI. Consider the case that the "illegal" users
would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use. So, then,
how much revenue is VSI losing?

Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....

wait for it ....

NOT ONE DOLLAR! NOT ONE RED CENT!

One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.

However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.

There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.

There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.

Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".

The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will be
a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.

Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-14 15:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician".  The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away.  So can VSI.  The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is
better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's
pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and is a potential VSI customer.
Really?  Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will cause
financial loss for VSI.  Consider the case that the "illegal" users
would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use.  So, then,
how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR!  NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will be
a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
And?

The law is still the law.

Some people think piracy is OK if the pirate would not have paid anyway.

The mafia thought is was OK to kill people that broke their code of conduct.

And so on.

But laws applies to everyone.

Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.

Arne
Simon Clubley
2020-08-14 17:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
But laws applies to everyone.
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
I agree.

It's ok to point out to VSI just how shortsighted their policies are
and which they absolutely most certainly are.

It's not ok to ignore those policies just because you don't like them.

Simon.
--
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.
Dave Froble
2020-08-14 19:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is
better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's
pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and is a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will
cause financial loss for VSI. Consider the case that the "illegal"
users would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use. So,
then, how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR! NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will
be a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
And?
The law is still the law.
Some people think piracy is OK if the pirate would not have paid anyway.
The mafia thought is was OK to kill people that broke their code of conduct.
And so on.
But laws applies to everyone.
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
Arne
Who is talking about laws? Not me. I'm just suggesting pros and cons
if some decided to use VMS without VSI permission.

As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to everyone,
with commercial use requiring support contract.

Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-14 21:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician".  The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away.  So can VSI.  The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is
better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's
pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and is a potential VSI customer.
Really?  Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will
cause financial loss for VSI.  Consider the case that the "illegal"
users would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use.  So,
then, how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR!  NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will
be a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
And?
The law is still the law.
Some people think piracy is OK if the pirate would not have paid anyway.
The mafia thought is was OK to kill people that broke their code of conduct.
And so on.
But laws applies to everyone.
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
Arne
Who is talking about laws?  Not me.  I'm just suggesting pros and cons
if some decided to use VMS without VSI permission.
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to everyone,
with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-15 00:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.

But they have contributed heavily.

I believe Redhat commit count to Linux kernel
is around 50000.

And they have also contributed significantly
to other projects important for Redhat Linux.
Including GLIBC - first with Ulrich Drepper
later with Carlos O'Donell.

Arne
Dave Froble
2020-08-15 00:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by David Goodwin
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and
combat
pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Post by David Goodwin
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is
better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's
pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and is a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
Post by David Goodwin
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will
cause financial loss for VSI. Consider the case that the "illegal"
users would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use. So,
then, how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR! NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will
be a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
And?
The law is still the law.
Some people think piracy is OK if the pirate would not have paid anyway.
The mafia thought is was OK to kill people that broke their code of conduct.
And so on.
But laws applies to everyone.
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
Arne
Who is talking about laws? Not me. I'm just suggesting pros and cons
if some decided to use VMS without VSI permission.
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
bill
Investing does not guarantee revenue ...

What good is an investment if nobody then buys your product?

Really, the only thing that matters is revenue for VSI. While there may
be different views on how to do that, if one looks around, one does not
see too many paying "much" for "little".

VSI needs people to see that VMS has some strengths. Few will see that,
if the product is "hidden".
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-15 06:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Chris Townley
2020-08-15 13:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
But they can charge for support services, which they do - that is how they make money that in turn supports the open development model

Chris
Dave Froble
2020-08-15 15:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.

Terms are irrelevant.

Success is everything.

Nit picking just sucks ...
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Scott Dorsey
2020-08-15 16:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Red Hat sure does charge license fees. You can't use a Red Hat distro
without paying for it. It's not cheap either.

Now, you can use a Centos distro or a Scientific Linux distro which are
functionally very close to Red Hat, but not licensed the same way. I have
yet to find any Red Hat code, source or binary, that doesn't run fine under
Centos. But Centos is not Red Hat.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Dave Froble
2020-08-15 17:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Red Hat sure does charge license fees. You can't use a Red Hat distro
without paying for it. It's not cheap either.
It is my understanding that Red Hat charges for support, and not fees
for using Linux. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
Post by Scott Dorsey
Now, you can use a Centos distro or a Scientific Linux distro which are
functionally very close to Red Hat, but not licensed the same way. I have
yet to find any Red Hat code, source or binary, that doesn't run fine under
Centos. But Centos is not Red Hat.
--scott
--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Scott Dorsey
2020-08-15 18:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
It is my understanding that Red Hat charges for support, and not fees
for using Linux. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
If you want to run the Red Hat distro, which consists of the Linux kernel
and a lot of other open source stuff that is bundled in, as well as some
commercial stuff, then you have to pay them money. Once you have paid
them money for the distro THEN you can pay them additional money for support.

You don't have to run the Red Hat distro. You can build your own distro
from the diverse sources out on the internet (and the Centos and Fedora
people do just that). But if you don't run the Red Hat distro you don't
get Red Hat support, and you don't get any guarantees that whatever you are
running is compatible with Red Hat.

Red Hat's basic model is to take open source code of various sorts, bundle
them together into a combined distribution that has been tested to make sure
everything works together, and sell it for money. They also make money
doing support but that is not their only revenue stream.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Chris Townley
2020-08-15 18:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
It is my understanding that Red Hat charges for support, and not fees
for using Linux. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
If you want to run the Red Hat distro, which consists of the Linux kernel
and a lot of other open source stuff that is bundled in, as well as some
commercial stuff, then you have to pay them money. Once you have paid
them money for the distro THEN you can pay them additional money for support.
You don't have to run the Red Hat distro. You can build your own distro
from the diverse sources out on the internet (and the Centos and Fedora
people do just that). But if you don't run the Red Hat distro you don't
get Red Hat support, and you don't get any guarantees that whatever you are
running is compatible with Red Hat.
Red Hat's basic model is to take open source code of various sorts, bundle
them together into a combined distribution that has been tested to make sure
everything works together, and sell it for money. They also make money
doing support but that is not their only revenue stream.
--scott
Whichever, my former company of 35 years balways used Red Hat for our Linux setups, as a 'standard' and with basic support.

My only issue was in later years where I had to do some of the system administration, I had no access to the main RH documentation.

Chris
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-15 21:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
It is my understanding that Red Hat charges for support, and not fees
for using Linux. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
If you want to run the Red Hat distro, which consists of the Linux kernel
and a lot of other open source stuff that is bundled in, as well as some
commercial stuff, then you have to pay them money. Once you have paid
them money for the distro THEN you can pay them additional money for support.
You don't have to run the Red Hat distro. You can build your own distro
from the diverse sources out on the internet (and the Centos and Fedora
people do just that). But if you don't run the Red Hat distro you don't
get Red Hat support, and you don't get any guarantees that whatever you are
running is compatible with Red Hat.
Red Hat's basic model is to take open source code of various sorts, bundle
them together into a combined distribution that has been tested to make sure
everything works together, and sell it for money. They also make money
doing support but that is not their only revenue stream.
Hmmmm.

I have not seen any pricing for RHEL except yearly subscriptions
on Redhat web site.

Do you consider the lowest level of support (no support) yearly
subscription cost a license fee and the difference between that
and a higher level of support yearly subscription cost for
paying for support?

That is sort of what it is, but it is not how it is being
presented.

Arne
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-15 17:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Red Hat sure does charge license fees. You can't use a Red Hat distro
without paying for it. It's not cheap either.
Right, but the fee is not for Linux itself.
Scott Dorsey
2020-08-15 18:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Red Hat sure does charge license fees. You can't use a Red Hat distro
without paying for it. It's not cheap either.
Right, but the fee is not for Linux itself.
That's true. Linux is just the kernel, and you can get it directly from
Linus.

However, if you want to actually use it for something, you need the rest
of the distro and if you get it from Red Hat you have to pay them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-15 21:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
They did not initiate the project.
But they have contributed heavily.
Of course, because of the terms, Red Hat couldn't charge for Linux
itself even if they wanted to.
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Red Hat sure does charge license fees. You can't use a Red Hat distro
without paying for it. It's not cheap either.
Now, you can use a Centos distro or a Scientific Linux distro which are
functionally very close to Red Hat, but not licensed the same way. I have
yet to find any Red Hat code, source or binary, that doesn't run fine under
Centos. But Centos is not Red Hat.
CentOS is not Redhat Enterprise Linux.

CentOS is produced by Redhat.

If somethings runs on RHEL but not on CentOS then I think one
could report it as a bug.

https://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General#What_is_CentOS_Linux.3F

<quote>
CentOS Linux provides a free and open source computing platform to
anyone who wishes to use it. CentOS Linux releases are built from
publicly available open source source code provided by Red Hat, Inc for
Red Hat Enterprise Linux. This source code is available on the CentOS
Git website.

CentOS Linux is the Community Development Platform for the Red Hat
family of Linux distributions. See this FAQ for more information.

CentOS conforms fully with Red Hat, Inc's redistribution policies and
aims to be functionally compatible with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. CentOS
mainly changes packages to remove trademarked vendor branding and artwork.

CentOS Linux does not contain Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Fedora Linux;
nor does it have any of their certifications, although it is built from
the same source code as the Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
</quote>

Arne
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-15 15:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Townley
But they can charge for support services, which they do - that is how
they make money that in turn supports the open development model
Yes, but that doesn't mean that that business model would be the best
for every company. I believe that Oracle is still more successful than
Red Hat.

For the bean counters, it shouldn't matter how much is paid for licenses
and how much for support; the sum is what matters. Same for the
company. Having no license, or a free license, but paying for support
makes it easier for hobbyists, of course. But it also means that
someone with a stable application, enough spare hardware, etc. is forced
to pay for support which he doesn't need, unless it is possible to have
a free license for commercial use as well. The question, for a company,
is which model works best. Would having the possibility to run
something at no cost attract enough people to pay for support that it is
worth it? Maybe for Linux (which must be free anyway), but perhaps not
for VMS.

If it were my decision, I would have a free hobbyist license for
personal use, a license at nominal cost for things such as non-profit
institutions and so on, perhaps slightly more for a developer's license
(even Oracle has a FREE developer's "license"), and a big discount on
commercial licenses for new customers. Unfair, perhaps, but it might
bring down the costs for all.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-15 15:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Of course they have some other source of revenue.
Post by Dave Froble
Terms are irrelevant.
No. They are legally not allowed to charge for using Linux.
Post by Dave Froble
Success is everything.
Not to everyone, but grant it for the sake of argument.
Post by Dave Froble
Nit picking just sucks ...
But comparing apples and oranges is not useful.
Scott Dorsey
2020-08-15 16:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No. They are legally not allowed to charge for using Linux.
They do, however. If you think this is not legal, you are free to try and
convince a judge that they are doing wrong.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
2020-08-15 17:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No. They are legally not allowed to charge for using Linux.
They do, however. If you think this is not legal, you are free to try and
convince a judge that they are doing wrong.
As someone else pointed out, they charge for their distribution, not for
Linux itself. I'm sure that it is possible to get the Linux source
completely free, legally, and build it.
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-15 18:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
No. They are legally not allowed to charge for using Linux.
They do, however. If you think this is not legal, you are free to try and
convince a judge that they are doing wrong.
As someone else pointed out, they charge for their distribution, not for
Linux itself. I'm sure that it is possible to get the Linux source
completely free, legally, and build it.
It's been a long time, but the last time I looked you could get
the source for Fedora, the free RedHat distribution but there
were parts that came with commercial RedHat that did not come
with Fedora and you could not get them without paying RedHat.

Personally, I stopped even looking at RedHat before I even left
the University. I saw no advantage in there distribution over
many others.

bill
Arne Vajhøj
2020-08-15 21:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by Dave Froble
Unless they have some other source of revenue, it appears they are
successful without charging license fees.
Of course they have some other source of revenue.
Post by Dave Froble
Terms are irrelevant.
No. They are legally not allowed to charge for using Linux.
Not true.

Linux is under GPL.

They can charge whatever they want for software under GPL.

They just need to provide the source code and the recipients
are allowed to freely distribute the source to the entire
world.

That creates a business problem selling GPL software,
but there is not a legal problem.

Arne
Scott Dorsey
2020-08-15 21:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Linux is under GPL.
"Linux" is only the Linux kernel, which is licensed under GPL 2.0.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
They can charge whatever they want for software under GPL.
They just need to provide the source code and the recipients
are allowed to freely distribute the source to the entire
world.
This is true.

However, the Linux distribution contains a lot of code from a lot of
sources under a lot of different licenses and not all of them are
licensed under the GPL. Some are under BSD licenses, some are under
weird licenses of their own.

Most of the commercial distributions like Red Hat contain in addition some
vendor-proprietary code.

If you get the Cray Linux Environment, you get basically SuSe but you
also get a whole bunch of proprietary Cray drivers and applications without
which your Cray hardware won't run.
Post by Arne Vajhøj
That creates a business problem selling GPL software,
but there is not a legal problem.
The business problem really comes down to "what can we do to this code to
make people want to pay money for it instead of using a free version."
That's a solved problem, though.

Admittedly back in the nineties there were a lot of outfits whose business
model was to keep getting more and more venture capital while they gave away
products. This model was not sustainable but most of the companies built on
it are long gone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Joukj
2020-08-27 08:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Post by David Goodwin
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and
combat
pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Post by David Goodwin
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is
better for VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's
pirating OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and is a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
Post by David Goodwin
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will
cause financial loss for VSI. Consider the case that the "illegal"
users would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use. So,
then, how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR! NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will
be a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
And?
The law is still the law.
Some people think piracy is OK if the pirate would not have paid anyway.
The mafia thought is was OK to kill people that broke their code of conduct.
And so on.
But laws applies to everyone.
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
Arne
Who is talking about laws? Not me. I'm just suggesting pros and cons
if some decided to use VMS without VSI permission.
As far as I'm concerned, VSI should make their product free to
everyone, with commercial use requiring support contract.
Ask Red Hat what they think of such a thing.
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
bill
I do not think that is the real reason. Even Windows has a free
educational program for OS and compilers.

IMHO the reason why Redhat is a success is that on the one hand hobyist
get it for free (either as Centos or Fedora (some preview of what Redhat
may look like in 1 or 2 years) and get a lot of experience with it and
on the other hand companies think that if you pay for something, it is a
better product (besides that they have need for support contracts for
their (critical) systems).
The hobyist using the systems have (some) influence on the choice of
systems the companies are going to buy. The arguments in the companies
discussion they get from the nice features they saw in their hobyist
version.

Jouk
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-27 10:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joukj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
I do not think that is the real reason. Even Windows has a free
educational program for OS and compilers.
Ummmm... No, it is not free. To the users, it is, but the school
pays to be an MSDNAA member. My department did it.

bill
Mark DeArman
2020-08-29 19:58:01 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Aug 2020 06:47:12 -0400, Bill Gunshannon
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Post by Joukj
Post by Bill Gunshannon
Red Hat didn't invest a lot of money getting the product
they started with.
I do not think that is the real reason. Even Windows has a free
educational program for OS and compilers.
Ummmm... No, it is not free. To the users, it is, but the school
pays to be an MSDNAA member. My department did it.
bill
It's $600/yr or so for the basic ISV developer program with 5 internal
licenses of everything. There are also some cheaper and free models
for just developer tools without the MSDN access, and internal use
licenses for the OS's and other 'layered products'.

Mark

Scott Dorsey
2020-08-14 21:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Laws is not something you pick and chose among. I like those two laws
so I follow them, but I don't like the third one so I will ignore that.
Doesn't work that way.
"They can't charge me. I have had six wives, you know, and this is the
first one I ever killed."
-- Michael Visaroff from W.C. Field's _Man on the Flying Trapeze_
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Bill Gunshannon
2020-08-14 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Froble
Post by Arne Vajhøj
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician".  The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away.  So can VSI.  The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better fo=
r VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating=
  OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and
software and i=
s a potential VSI customer.
Really?  Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319
Usually doing "something" for VMS is good.
But doing 1/3/5/6/10 years for VMS is not good.
:-)
Arne
It's once again proven, "human intelligence" is a myth .....
So, though it's probably hopeless, I'll try once again to help
understanding.
Some will claim that if say 10,000 commercial users of VMS are not
paying for VSI support (best revenue method for VSI) that it will cause
financial loss for VSI.  Consider the case that the "illegal" users
would stop using VMS before paying one dollar for such use.  So, then,
how much revenue is VSI losing?
Under those conditions the only correct answer is ....
wait for it ....
NOT ONE DOLLAR!  NOT ONE RED CENT!
One cannot lose anything one was never going to get.
However, consider what those 10,000 users will be doing.
There will be a substantial number of employees working with VMS.
There will be the realization that VMS is a good solution for many
requirements.
Perhaps in some cases a law abiding person ends up in charge, and
decides to become "legal".
The cheap bastards probably won't pay decent salaries, so there will be
a large number of VMS capable people looking for better jobs, and
available to VMS users who are a revenue source for VSI.
Such a scenario would be one of the better things to happen for VSI.
Cute idea, but....

I would never pay a dime for a Microsoft OS. NOT ONE DOLLAR!
NOT ONE RED CENT! Do you think Microsoft would accept that
logic and just let me pirate their software? Do you think
they would appreciate that people are getting experience with
their OSes without anyone paying for them?

Just saying.....

bill
David Goodwin
2020-08-14 22:43:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Removing access to the platforms main selling point to try and combat pirac=
y seems like a pretty serious error. Piracy is the very last thing VSI shou=
ld be concerned with. They would be lucky if piracy was a problem. Right no=
w they're going to have a hard time even getting Linux users to seriously l=
ook at OpenVMS at all, let alone consider pirating it.
Sounds like the "it's good to `share' music because it benefits the
musician". The musician himself can decide if he wants to give stuff
away. So can VSI. The idea that people first pirate stuff to try it
out then become paying customers is bullshit.
Whether VMS piracy is a problem is a different question.
Also, they seem to not realise that a company pirating OpenVMS is better fo=
r VSI than one that just gives up and runs Linux. A company that's pirating=
OpenVMS is at least creating demand for OpenVMS experts and software and i=
s a potential VSI customer.
Really? Someone morally low enough to steal intellectual property will
have a vision and become a paying customer?
It is attitudes like this which seriously endanger hobbyist licenses.
The pool of OpenVMS experts and available softw=
are needs to be much much larger than it is for OpenVMS to be competitive w=
ith linux.
VMS will probably never compete with Linux.
I should point out that I am most definitely *NOT* advocating people pirate OpenVMS. VSI needs every cent they can get to ensure OpenVMS remains viable.

I was rather pointing out that an operating system needs a large number of developers, administrators and users familiar with it in order to remain viable. OpenVMS increasingly does not have this.

Even if a hypothetical company pirating OpenVMS will never give VSI a cent they are still improving the position of OpenVMS in the market. Focusing on locking these unlicensed users out, if there are any, at the expense of getting the platforms unique features in front of as many people as possible is probably doing more harm than good.
John E. Malmberg
2020-08-13 23:34:44 UTC
Permalink
On 8/13/2020 10:24 AM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
<snip>
Post by John H. Reinhardt
You will note in the first paragraph it does plainly state that HP "will
grant you the right to use OpenVMS on a SINGLE computer".  So I guess
those of us running VMS clusters havbe been in technical violation of
the agreement all this time. I've looked back as far as October 2003 (my
first license from Montagar) and even those had the same clause, in fact
it looks identical to the above with the exception of "Compaq" for "HPE".
I have also inquired about the lack of compiler license PAKs for
Integrity and am awaiting an answer.
The first hobbyist PAKs for the OpenVMS operating system had the serial
number encoded in the license PAK. They were also set with attributes
that they could not be shared with another node in a cluster.

You had to make a separate request for each system that you had.

The instructions were to make up a serial number for emulators.

When HPE started issuing the PAKs directly, they removed the serial
number encoding and made the operating system PAKs sharable.

Regards,
-John
John H. Reinhardt
2020-08-14 01:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John E. Malmberg
<snip>
You will note in the first paragraph it does plainly state that HP "will grant you the right to use OpenVMS on a SINGLE computer".  So I guess those of us running VMS clusters havbe been in technical violation of the agreement all this time. I've looked back as far as October 2003 (my first license from Montagar) and even those had the same clause, in fact it looks identical to the above with the exception of "Compaq" for "HPE".
I have also inquired about the lack of compiler license PAKs for Integrity and am awaiting an answer.
The first hobbyist PAKs for the OpenVMS operating system had the serial number encoded in the license PAK.  They were also set with attributes that they could not be shared with another node in a cluster.
You had to make a separate request for each system that you had.
The instructions were to make up a serial number for emulators.
When HPE started issuing the PAKs directly, they removed the serial number encoding and made the operating system PAKs sharable.
Regards,
-John
I remember. In addition to Mr Egolf's note I've gone back and found that every email that was generated after that from 2013 until this year also said that the PAKs could be shared over multiple systems of that person. See below. So there were conflicting instructions from HP/HPE.
Post by John E. Malmberg
Hi John,
Please see attached for PAKs to use on your VAX/Alpha and Integrity server.
The attached files is a DCL command file; to load your PAKs simply execute it
Please let me know if you have any issues.
Regards,
/John
You can use these PAKs on multiple installations you may have.
There is no need to request PAKs per-instance of OpenVMS if you have more than one
Also note, for beginners or those looking for help/support,
go to http://www.openvms.org/pages.php?page=Beginner
There are useful links and pointers to Newsgroups and Forums where you can post questions and get answers.
Pointer to kit download available upon request via email to me, specify hardware platform.
--
John H. Reinhardt
Loading...