On 4/30/21 2:54 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s6ffll$hhl$2@dont-email.me>,

>> And, for those that so require, there are also perpetual licenses.
>
> So one has a choice? How does one get such a perpetual license?

No, you have no choice. The letter says you apply to VSI, who will
review the request and decide whether you get the non-expiring licenses.
The implication from the examples given ("nuclear plants, military
armaments, local infrastructure projects, other key government agencies
that protect their citizens, etc.") is that the answer will be no for
people merely concerned about staying in business.

> What is the cost compared to the others?

It's never mentioned in the letter.

On 4/30/21 4:00 AM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-04-30 kl. 09:54, skrev Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):
>>
>> None of that addresses the concern that VSI might go bust.  In such
>> cases, people need more than a few weeks to move to another platform.
>> And I seriously don't think that people forgetting to renew is the
>> problem.
>>
>
> A "few weeks"? 120 days are around 17 weeks.
>

It's been a long time (many decades) but the last time I saw
a migration of a production environment from one system to a
totally different system (and the primary language involved
was COBOL which is very portable) it took a year. And there
were minor fires that had to be extinguished for many months
thereafter.

bill

On 4/30/2021 12:33 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-04-29, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 4/29/2021 5:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2021 3:05 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/21 3:38 PM, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
>>>>> Additionally, VSI plans to move to per-core SaaS licensing on OpenVMS
>>>>> x86-64.
>>>>
>>>> LOL, good luck with that. What is this, 1982?
>>>
>>> Actually, I can see some benefit from this.  Whoever uses more, pays
>>> more.  Reasonable, I'd think.
>>
>> Paying per system size is common today.
>>
>> Oracle is well known to do it.
>>
>> I believe Microsoft also do it.
>
> VSI is not Oracle or Microsoft.

Very true.

But that does not change that paying per system side is common today.

ANd Oracle and MS seemed more relevant to mention that some companies
that nobody knows.

> There's one thing I do not understand.
>
> If VSI are so sure that they are not going to go bust or be sold off,
> then why not offer the escrow option anyway as they will never have
> to deliver on it if they are right.
>
> For the cost of setting up the escrow, they would get a great marketing
> tool that would build customer confidence.
>
> If they believe they would never have to deliver on it, then why not
> just offer it ? The benefits would outweigh the escrow setup costs if
> VSI are right about their future.

In worst case it would hurt creditors. That could be problematic. In
a super worst casde scenario then it could even end up being the
customers problem.

Arne

On 4/30/2021 12:40 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-04-30, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2021 12:27 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-04-29, Mark Redding <mwjredding@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I do recall that the PATCH utility had a very useful DEPOSIT command, and that VMS has, if I remember correctly, a NOP instruction.
>>>
>>> I hope no-one is thinking of doing this.
>>>
>>> This is _NOT_ the right way to go about this.
>>>
>>
>> It is far from my first choice, but, if I was faced with my customers
>> going out of business, I surely would. Anybody who would not isn't too
>> bright.
>>
>> If VSI is out of business, where is the harm?
>>
>> If multiple companies go out of business, losing the jobs for many
>> people, then really, it would be the correct thing to do.
>>
>
> There was no implication in the original message that this would be
> done only after VSI had gone out of business.
>
> Simon.
>

Gee Simon, it sure is in the thread where that seems to be a big topic.

More than a few people know how to defeat the VMS license scheme. Just
knowing that does not mean they would use it. As I've mentioned in the
past, all CODIS users have support, not because they would ever use it,
but because VSI needs to be supported.

If it was your customer, and hundreds of people faced losing their jobs,
what would you do?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/30/21 11:26 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 12:40 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-04-30, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2021 12:27 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-04-29, Mark Redding <mwjredding@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I do recall that the PATCH utility had a very useful DEPOSIT
>>>>> command, and that VMS has, if I remember correctly, a NOP instruction.
>>>>
>>>> I hope no-one is thinking of doing this.
>>>>
>>>> This is _NOT_ the right way to go about this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is far from my first choice, but, if I was faced with my customers
>>> going out of business, I surely would.  Anybody who would not isn't too
>>> bright.
>>>
>>> If VSI is out of business, where is the harm?
>>>
>>> If multiple companies go out of business, losing the jobs for many
>>> people, then really, it would be the correct thing to do.
>>>
>>
>> There was no implication in the original message that this would be
>> done only after VSI had gone out of business.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Gee Simon, it sure is in the thread where that seems to be a big topic.
>
> More than a few people know how to defeat the VMS license scheme.  Just
> knowing that does not mean they would use it.  As I've mentioned in the
> past, all CODIS users have support, not because they would ever use it,
> but because VSI needs to be supported.
>
> If it was your customer, and hundreds of people faced losing their jobs,
> what would you do?
>

I wouldn't be waiting until the last minute to make a plan.

bill

Le 29/04/2021 à 00:38, Stephen Hoffman a écrit :
>
> From the VSI "Chief Revenue Officer" Terry Holmes, the VSI response to
> the subscription licensing discussions:
>
> https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license
>
> SaaS licensing will continue for new license purchases.
>
> Additionally, VSI plans to move to per-core SaaS licensing on OpenVMS
> x86-64.
>
>
>
>
Hello,

We are very happy to have sparked this discussion. We are impressed by
the number of readers and contributors.

We are a working group and it is not possible for us to respond as
quickly as individuals. But we read all contributions with the utmost
attention. And we want to respond, at our own pace.

We note that almost all contributors share our concern. The ideas
expressed in this thread often overlap with those emerging from our
discussions.

We had sent a letter to Adam Hoff-Nielsen (VSI's French-speaking contact
for Europe) and Terry Holmes. We got a reply from Terry Holmes which he
made public to the connect German group
(https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license), without
informing us of this publication.

We have studied his reply letter. With a few exceptions, we are not
happy with the content and we are preparing a second letter which will
be sent next week. We will communicate on comp.os.vms the results of our
efforts.

We encourage all readers and contributors to this thread to activate the
channels they know to send their feedback to VSI.

We are very eager to discuss this topic and more generally about the
conditions for a successful return of VMS. You can also suggest meetings
or actions in which we would be proud to participate.

Sincerely,

The VMSgenerations Working Group

On 2021-04-30, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/21 11:26 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>> If it was your customer, and hundreds of people faced losing their jobs,
>> what would you do?
>>
>
> I wouldn't be waiting until the last minute to make a plan.
>

Exactly. And judging from the original posting and the responses so far,
it looks like people need to see a viable plan for this exact situation
if it occurs before they will agree to continue buying from VSI.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2021-04-30, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 12:33 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> If VSI are so sure that they are not going to go bust or be sold off,
>> then why not offer the escrow option anyway as they will never have
>> to deliver on it if they are right.
>>
>> For the cost of setting up the escrow, they would get a great marketing
>> tool that would build customer confidence.
>>
>> If they believe they would never have to deliver on it, then why not
>> just offer it ? The benefits would outweigh the escrow setup costs if
>> VSI are right about their future.
>
> In worst case it would hurt creditors. That could be problematic. In
> a super worst casde scenario then it could even end up being the
> customers problem.
>

Why would it become the customer's problem ? Have you seen something
the rest of us have missed so far ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 4/30/2021 1:07 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-04-30, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/21 11:26 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>
>>> If it was your customer, and hundreds of people faced losing their jobs,
>>> what would you do?
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be waiting until the last minute to make a plan.
>>
>
> Exactly. And judging from the original posting and the responses so far,
> it looks like people need to see a viable plan for this exact situation
> if it occurs before they will agree to continue buying from VSI.
>
> Simon.
>

When V9.2 and beyond are ready, sensible people will be looking at
moving to x86 VMS. But in doing so, there is the question, "with the
SAAS support, what happens if for any reason, we cannot get support and
updated licenses?" Before moving to x86 VMS, this question must have a
satisfactory answer. Otherwise, it would be foolish to make such a move.

So, yeah, this question is one VSI must address, if they wish to sell
x86 VMS. It is not the customer's problem, it is VSI's problem, and, it
is a problem.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 4/30/2021 1:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-04-30, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2021 12:33 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> If VSI are so sure that they are not going to go bust or be sold off,
>>> then why not offer the escrow option anyway as they will never have
>>> to deliver on it if they are right.
>>>
>>> For the cost of setting up the escrow, they would get a great marketing
>>> tool that would build customer confidence.
>>>
>>> If they believe they would never have to deliver on it, then why not
>>> just offer it ? The benefits would outweigh the escrow setup costs if
>>> VSI are right about their future.
>>
>> In worst case it would hurt creditors. That could be problematic. In
>> a super worst casde scenario then it could even end up being the
>> customers problem.
>
> Why would it become the customer's problem ? Have you seen something
> the rest of us have missed so far ?

Transfer of something of value away from creditors can
be a legal problem. In bankruptcy cases what is called
"fraudulent transfers" can be undone by court.

Arne

On 4/30/2021 2:36 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 1:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-04-30, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2021 12:33 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> If VSI are so sure that they are not going to go bust or be sold off,
>>>> then why not offer the escrow option anyway as they will never have
>>>> to deliver on it if they are right.
>>>>
>>>> For the cost of setting up the escrow, they would get a great marketing
>>>> tool that would build customer confidence.
>>>>
>>>> If they believe they would never have to deliver on it, then why not
>>>> just offer it ? The benefits would outweigh the escrow setup costs if
>>>> VSI are right about their future.
>>>
>>> In worst case it would hurt creditors. That could be problematic. In
>>> a super worst casde scenario then it could even end up being the
>>> customers problem.
>>
>> Why would it become the customer's problem ? Have you seen something
>> the rest of us have missed so far ?
>
> Transfer of something of value away from creditors can
> be a legal problem. In bankruptcy cases what is called
> "fraudulent transfers" can be undone by court.

If it is an agreement between vendor and customers, I don't see how it
could be a problem. That would take something of value from the
customers, which they have paid for, and are entitled to.

I'm thinking that the simplest thing would be a permanent license pak,
along with a binding agreement, that if for whatever reason VSI could no
longer issue new licenses, the customers would be entitled to the
permanent license pak and unlimited usage of the latest version of VMS,
layered products, and whatever, or whatever they choose to run. This
would be part of their service agreement, paid for, and legal.

I don't really care about the mechanics of how to do this. But it is
the minimum that I'd consider acceptable.

I've contacted Terry at VSI, and am waiting on his response.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2021-04-30, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> When V9.2 and beyond are ready, sensible people will be looking at
> moving to x86 VMS. But in doing so, there is the question, "with the
> SAAS support, what happens if for any reason, we cannot get support and
> updated licenses?" Before moving to x86 VMS, this question must have a
> satisfactory answer. Otherwise, it would be foolish to make such a move.
>
> So, yeah, this question is one VSI must address, if they wish to sell
> x86 VMS. It is not the customer's problem, it is VSI's problem, and, it
> is a problem.
>

Just a reminder that this has already started with Itanium (and
apparently any recent Alpha contracts as well) so sorting this
out is a little more urgent than that.

Did you hear anything back from VSI ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2021-04-30, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 2:36 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/30/2021 1:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> Why would it become the customer's problem ? Have you seen something
>>> the rest of us have missed so far ?
>>
>> Transfer of something of value away from creditors can
>> be a legal problem. In bankruptcy cases what is called
>> "fraudulent transfers" can be undone by court.
>
> If it is an agreement between vendor and customers, I don't see how it
> could be a problem. That would take something of value from the
> customers, which they have paid for, and are entitled to.
>

Indeed. That is _exactly_ the point of escrow agreements.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Paying per system size is common today.
>
> Oracle is well known to do it.
>
> I believe Microsoft also do it.

Yes, and there's also a reason PostgreSQL, MySQL, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
are so prevalent relative to Oracle and Microsoft.

VSI may think they have Oracle or Sybase/Microsoft levels of customer
lock-in, but what customers will actually do is further hasten their
transition to other systems.

-- Chris

On 2021-05-21, Chris Hanson <cmhanson@eschatologist.net> wrote:
> On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Paying per system size is common today.
>>
>> Oracle is well known to do it.
>>
>> I believe Microsoft also do it.
>
> Yes, and there's also a reason PostgreSQL, MySQL, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
> are so prevalent relative to Oracle and Microsoft.
>
> VSI may think they have Oracle or Sybase/Microsoft levels of customer
> lock-in, but what customers will actually do is further hasten their
> transition to other systems.
>

I agree.

The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
not seen it posted here ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/21/2021 2:05 AM, Chris Hanson wrote:
> On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> Paying per system size is common today.
>>
>> Oracle is well known to do it.
>>
>> I believe Microsoft also do it.
>
> Yes, and there's also a reason PostgreSQL, MySQL, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
> are so prevalent relative to Oracle and Microsoft.

I suspect that VSI could live with having the profits of Oracle and
Microsoft.

10 and 44 B$ respectively.

:-)

> VSI may think they have Oracle or Sybase/Microsoft levels of customer
> lock-in, but what customers will actually do is further hasten their
> transition to other systems.

VSI has way stronger lock-in with existing customers than Oracle and MS.

New customers will be an entirely different thing though.

Arne

On 5/21/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-05-21, Chris Hanson <cmhanson@eschatologist.net> wrote:
>> On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> Paying per system size is common today.
>>>
>>> Oracle is well known to do it.
>>>
>>> I believe Microsoft also do it.
>>
>> Yes, and there's also a reason PostgreSQL, MySQL, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
>> are so prevalent relative to Oracle and Microsoft.
>>
>> VSI may think they have Oracle or Sybase/Microsoft levels of customer
>> lock-in, but what customers will actually do is further hasten their
>> transition to other systems.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
> VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
> not seen it posted here ?
>
> Simon.
>

I sent an email to Terry Holmes weeks ago. No reply.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2021-05-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
>> VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
>> not seen it posted here ?
>>
>
> I sent an email to Terry Holmes weeks ago. No reply.
>

In that case, I think that's very poor on the part of VSI management.

You are not an ordinary VSI customer David. You are a customer
that not only buys from VSI but is also directly responsible
for a lot of other people (_your_ customers) also buying from VSI.

With the amount of business you put their way David, I think that's
rather poor form on the part of VSI.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

Den 2021-05-21 kl. 23:18, skrev Simon Clubley:
> On 2021-05-21, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
>>> VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
>>> not seen it posted here ?
>>>
>>
>> I sent an email to Terry Holmes weeks ago. No reply.
>>
>
> In that case, I think that's very poor on the part of VSI management.
>
> You are not an ordinary VSI customer David. You are a customer
> that not only buys from VSI but is also directly responsible
> for a lot of other people (_your_ customers) also buying from VSI.
>
> With the amount of business you put their way David, I think that's
> rather poor form on the part of VSI.
>
> Simon.
>

Without knowing what that email actually contained it is hard to
say if a reply was expected or not. It happens that I get emails
that I simply just forget about.

If it was just the same comments on that letter that has been
expressed already in other ways, it might not justify a reply.

So, chill down a little, Simon... :-)

And, it might be better to send to support@vmssoftware.com, if you
have questions relating to your support agreement.

Le 21/05/2021 à 14:06, Simon Clubley a écrit :
> The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
> VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
> not seen it posted here ?
>
> Simon.
(Thanks Simon for your attention)

Maybe it is time for us to say that we did send a second letter to VSI
on May 7th after their unsatisfying answer (that they decided to make
public via gtug.de).

We provided customers concerns and feedbacks on inconsistencies in the
licensing policy.

We suggested ways for a positive exit on this VSI originated crisis but
are still waiting for a reaction.

We plan to keep users informed but have no answer from VSI yet.

VMSgenerations working group

Just to help people finding this letter:

The VSI information has been posted by the Connect OpenVMS SIG:

https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license

Volker.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 4:11:06 PM UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 5/21/2021 8:06 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2021-05-21, Chris Hanson <cmha...@eschatologist.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/29/21 5:01 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>> Paying per system size is common today.
> >>>
> >>> Oracle is well known to do it.
> >>>
> >>> I believe Microsoft also do it.
> >>
> >> Yes, and there's also a reason PostgreSQL, MySQL, FreeBSD, Linux, etc.
> >> are so prevalent relative to Oracle and Microsoft.
> >>
> >> VSI may think they have Oracle or Sybase/Microsoft levels of customer
> >> lock-in, but what customers will actually do is further hasten their
> >> transition to other systems.
> >>
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > The French group were supposed to be creating a letter in response to
> > VSI's totally out of touch reply. Did this ever happen because I have
> > not seen it posted here ?
> >
> > Simon.
> >
> I sent an email to Terry Holmes weeks ago. No reply.
> --
> David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
> Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: da...@tsoft-inc.com
> DFE Ultralights, Inc.
> 170 Grimplin Road
> Vanderbilt, PA 15486

did you also send him a copy of your latest bank statement? :)

On 5/1/2021 11:15 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-04-30, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2021 2:36 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2021 1:09 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> Why would it become the customer's problem ? Have you seen something
>>>> the rest of us have missed so far ?
>>>
>>> Transfer of something of value away from creditors can
>>> be a legal problem. In bankruptcy cases what is called
>>> "fraudulent transfers" can be undone by court.
>>
>> If it is an agreement between vendor and customers, I don't see how it
>> could be a problem. That would take something of value from the
>> customers, which they have paid for, and are entitled to.
>
> Indeed. That is _exactly_ the point of escrow agreements.

But it is not the case here.

A typical escrow agreement is that company A delivers software
X to company B and promise N years of support for a given amount.
The source code for X is put in escrow and B get access to it
if A are not able to deliver the promised support.

What we are discussing here is a different scenario. Company A
delivers software X to company B and promise N years of support
for a given amount. Company A actually delivers as promised, but
after the N years they don't want to sell X again or A and B cannot
agree on the price for selling X again. And you want B to get
X for free forever in that case.

Very different.

And given that if VSI goes under then the right to
issue new VMS licenses is likely the only real asset
that can be used to cover debt to creditors, then giving
away that asset for free to customers will raise
questions.

And given that the whole point of this discussion is to
remove risk for VMS customers, then a solution that could
be overturned by court is not good.

The asset preservation issue could be addressed if it
was not for free. Customer would be offered a forever license
for a "fair amount" if VSI went under. Then creditors would
get some value and the legal risk would be somewhat
mitigated.

But if the right to VMS ends up with a company
just wanting to sell licenses and not provide any
development & support, then most customers will
want to migrate off VMS.

And then what is the difference between having prepaid
for 5 years license and paying the equivalent of 5 or 10 years
license for a forever license and migrate off in 5 years?

Arne

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:38:18 PM UTC+1, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> From the VSI "Chief Revenue Officer" Terry Holmes, the VSI response to
> the subscription licensing discussions:
>
> https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license
>
> SaaS licensing will continue for new license purchases.
>
> Additionally, VSI plans to move to per-core SaaS licensing on OpenVMS x86-64.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

I see there are circumstances under which VSI will grant a perpetual license. The discussion here has not talked about those or engaging with the VSI Sales Director about that. Perhaps such discussions are going on in private while complain.on.vms proceeds as usual.

In article <8dec4562-dd0f-434e-b31f-5fe0cc0a1b82n@googlegroups.com>, Ian
Miller <gxys@uk2.net> writes:

> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 11:38:18 PM UTC+1, Stephen Hoffman wrote:
> > From the VSI "Chief Revenue Officer" Terry Holmes, the VSI response to
> > the subscription licensing discussions:
> >
> > https://www.connect-community.de/SIGs/OpenVMS/license
> >
> > SaaS licensing will continue for new license purchases.
> >
> > Additionally, VSI plans to move to per-core SaaS licensing on OpenVMS x86-64.
> >
> > --
> > Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
>
> I see there are circumstances under which VSI will grant a perpetual license.
> The discussion here has not talked about those or engaging with the VSI
> Sales Director about that. Perhaps such discussions are going on in private
> while complain.on.vms proceeds as usual.

That has been mentioned here. Yes, if you are running a nuclear power
plant then maybe you can get a perpetual license. In any case, it seems
to be something one has to negotiate. Obviously, if it were a
possibility for a majority of customers, there would be no point in the
new scheme, so such licenses will probably fill only a very small niche.