I had a look at the original pakgen.c source from mirrors.pdp-11.ru. I get the impression somebody disassembled a bunch of VAX machine language, then did a straight transliteration into C code.

So I thought I would clean it up a bit. And I managed to knock its size down by a couple hundred lines. I also wrote a Python version, which is less than half the size of the original, and also add a few features. For example, I was able to add the HARDWARE_ID, TOKEN and VERSION atttributes by guessing at their codes. So far I haven’t been able to figure out the RELEASE_DATE and TERMINATION_DATE attributes, most likely because I can’t get the right date-encoding format.

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 5:55:23 AM UTC+1, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> I had a look at the original pakgen.c source from mirrors.pdp-11.ru. I get the impression somebody disassembled a bunch of VAX machine language, then did a straight transliteration into C code.
>
> So I thought I would clean it up a bit. And I managed to knock its size down by a couple hundred lines. I also wrote a Python version, which is less than half the size of the original, and also add a few features. For example, I was able to add the HARDWARE_ID, TOKEN and VERSION atttributes by guessing at their codes. So far I haven’t been able to figure out the RELEASE_DATE and TERMINATION_DATE attributes, most likely because I can’t get the right date-encoding format.

Hi - I sent you a message on LinkedIn - I can't find an email address for you.
cheers
e

It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of pakgen to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is not legal. The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to remove the pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the site removes the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are creating.

Dave Sweeney

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:55:11 AM UTC-7, dsweene...@gmail.com wrote:
> It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of pakgen to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is not legal. The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to remove the pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the site removes the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are creating.
>
> Dave Sweeney

Versions of PAKGEN.C are available all over the Internet in various forums. Even if the mirrors site removes it, the cat is out of the bag there.

In many (most?) jurisdictions, it's also perfectly legal to author, refactor, and share code like PAKGEN. You're not in a position to tell Lawrence whether or not he can share that code.

By the way, some people seem to be under the impression that LMF is/was some kind of copyright enforcement tool. DEC’s own documentation made it clear this was not the intention.

On Fri, 06 Aug 2021 06:55:09 -0700, David Sweeney wrote:

> It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of pakgen
> to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is not legal.
> The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to remove the
> pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the site removes
> the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are creating.

He *can* share anything he likes. Whether he should, and whether it is
legal (which it will be in many jurisdictions) is a separate matter.

But that's up to him.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

In article <47e66171-ea70-40e4-a71e-44380038e589n@googlegroups.com>,
"jimc...@gmail.com" <jimcausey@gmail.com> writes:

> In many (most?) jurisdictions, it's also perfectly legal to author,
> refactor, and share code like PAKGEN.

Perhaps. But is it legal to use it? In any case, a reference would be
helpful. I doubt that VSI or anyone else would bother generating
licenses if it were perfectly legal to create one's own.

In article <3d90d9d7-99d3-404e-9d88-accda075ffc2n@googlegroups.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Lawrence_D'Oliveiro?= <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> writes:

> By the way, some people seem to be under the impression that LMF is/was
> some kind of copyright enforcement tool. DEC's own documentation
> made it clear this was not the intention.

DEC's documentation never said that it was OK to use something like a
rogue tool to generate a license to avoid buying a real one. Also,
apart from both having to do with intellectual property, licenses and
copyright have little in common.

On 2021-08-06, jimc...@gmail.com <jimcausey@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:55:11 AM UTC-7, dsweene...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of pakgen to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is not legal. The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to remove the pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the site removes the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are creating.
>>
>> Dave Sweeney
>
> Versions of PAKGEN.C are available all over the Internet in various forums. Even if the mirrors site removes it, the cat is out of the bag there.
>
> In many (most?) jurisdictions, it's also perfectly legal to author, refactor, and share code like PAKGEN. You're not in a position to tell Lawrence whether or not he can share that code.

Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
a strong response from VSI.

For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
users don't try "cheating".

As such, I would not be surprised to find out that VSI are
considering implementing a much stronger version of the LMF for
the x86-64 VMS production versions.

Right now would be an ideal time to implement such a change as there
are no production licences for x86-64 VMS at the moment, so there are
no backwards compatibility issues if they implement a replacement
right now.

They could take a signed licence keys approach and later on
actually implement signed images in VMS that cannot be tampered
with to patch out the licence checks. The days when you had to
support manually entering a licence key have probably passed.

BTW, if VSI do that, you will not be able to patch the resulting
images to bypass the licence checks on the time-limited licences
if VSI do go bust.

Simon.

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

On 8/6/2021 8:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-06, jimc...@gmail.com <jimcausey@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:55:11 AM UTC-7, dsweene...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of pakgen to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is not legal. The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to remove the pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the site removes the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are creating.
>>>
>>> Dave Sweeney
>>
>> Versions of PAKGEN.C are available all over the Internet in various forums. Even if the mirrors site removes it, the cat is out of the bag there.
>>
>> In many (most?) jurisdictions, it's also perfectly legal to author, refactor, and share code like PAKGEN. You're not in a position to tell Lawrence whether or not he can share that code.
>
> Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
> a strong response from VSI.
>
> For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
> collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
> users don't try "cheating".

The first part of that is reasonable and how things must be if VSI and
VMS are going to be around for a while.

The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
"cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
rather than one time license sales.

--
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 2021-08-06, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 8:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
>> a strong response from VSI.
>>
>> For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
>> collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
>> users don't try "cheating".
>
> The first part of that is reasonable and how things must be if VSI and
> VMS are going to be around for a while.
>
> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
> rather than one time license sales.
>

If VSI were not worried about such things, they would not be
implementing time-limited licences on production machines.

Whether they are actually _right_ to be worried about such things
is a question I cannot answer.

Simon.

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

In article <seklum$7q3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
> rather than one time license sales.

I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
publicize that fact.

But if cheaters were a non-problem, why have LMF at all?

On Sat, 07 Aug 2021 08:21:34 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote:

> In article <seklum$7q3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> rather than one time license sales.
>
> I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
> shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
> publicize that fact.
>
> But if cheaters were a non-problem, why have LMF at all?

I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
company was a bit disorganised.

Why on earth HP couldn't have generated perpetual PAKs for VAX, I don't
know. Incompetence is by far the most likely reason - well, and
disinterest.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/6/2021 8:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-08-06, jimc...@gmail.com <jimcausey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 6:55:11 AM UTC-7, dsweene...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> It should come as no surprise that creating a hacked version of
>>>> pakgen to generate license PAKs for any VMS or OpenVMS product is
>>>> not legal. The webmaster of the mirroring site has been contacted to
>>>> remove the pakgen source from the site. Lawrence, whether or not the
>>>> site removes the code you cannot use or share PAKGEN hack you are
>>>> creating.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Sweeney
>>>
>>> Versions of PAKGEN.C are available all over the Internet in various
>>> forums.  Even if the mirrors site removes it, the cat is out of the
>>> bag there.
>>>
>>> In many (most?) jurisdictions, it's also perfectly legal to author,
>>> refactor, and share code like PAKGEN.  You're not in a position to
>>> tell Lawrence whether or not he can share that code.
>>
>> Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
>> a strong response from VSI.
>>
>> For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
>> collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
>> users don't try "cheating".
>
> The first part of that is reasonable and how things must be if VSI and
> VMS are going to be around for a while.
>
> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these
> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just
> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
> rather than one time license sales.
>

I agree with this entirely. It is not cheaters that VSI needs to
fear it is management who come out of MBA school with no knowledge
of anything not Microsoft or Linux and will see moving from VMS to
one of those as "modernization" of a legacy system. Go read some
of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems". Not specifically
about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem. I recently saw an article
that blamed delays processing one of the government handouts on the
fact that the system is written in COBOL. I am sure that when it
comes time to replace a VMS system they will offer VAX benchmarks
as proof that VMS is just a dog that needs to be put out of its
misery.

bill

On 8/7/21 4:21 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <seklum$7q3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> rather than one time license sales.
>
> I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
> shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
> publicize that fact.

I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
using pakgen.c. I doubt any legitimate business would as the legal
implications (even without VSI being involved) as a serious concern.
You don't think the auditors or legal department would be looking at
this?

>
> But if cheaters were a non-problem, why have LMF at all?
>

Because it was already in the code they got and removing it might be
problematic at the moment.

bill

On 8/7/21 5:20 AM, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2021 08:21:34 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <seklum$7q3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>
>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>> I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
>> shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
>> publicize that fact.
>>
>> But if cheaters were a non-problem, why have LMF at all?
>
> I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
> of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
> company was a bit disorganised.
>
> Why on earth HP couldn't have generated perpetual PAKs for VAX, I don't
> know. Incompetence is by far the most likely reason - well, and
> disinterest.

My vote would be for disinterest.

bill

On 8/7/2021 4:21 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <seklum$7q3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> rather than one time license sales.
>
> I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
> shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
> publicize that fact.
>
> But if cheaters were a non-problem, why have LMF at all?

I have always seen LMF and VMS software license check not as protection
against software piracy but as assistance to those managing licenses.
It is possible to see what licenses are there. It is possible to see
units and expiration dates. Software stop working in case someone forget
to renew licenses, which will make someone notice it.

Arne

In article <in7b49Ffdh3U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
<bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:

> >> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
> >> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
> >> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
> >> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
> >> rather than one time license sales.
> >
> > I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
> > shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
> > publicize that fact.
>
> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
> using pakgen.c.

That makes little sense, as hobbyist licenses have been available for
the asking for decades.

On Sat, 07 Aug 2021 20:33:12 +0000, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote:

> In article <in7b49Ffdh3U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
> <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> >> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>> >> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>> >> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> >> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> >> rather than one time license sales.
>> >
>> > I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
>> > shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would
>> > not publicize that fact.
>>
>> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
>> using pakgen.c.
>
> That makes little sense, as hobbyist licenses have been available for
> the asking for decades.

But they haven't been available for some months for VAX, and there will
be no more.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 8/7/21 4:33 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <in7b49Ffdh3U1@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
> <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>>>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>>
>>> I don't know, but the fact that one can find such things on the net
>>> shows that there must be some interest, and obviously cheaters would not
>>> publicize that fact.
>>
>> I suspect that it is "Hobbyists" that are and are likely to continue
>> using pakgen.c.
>
> That makes little sense, as hobbyist licenses have been available for
> the asking for decades.
>

There have been times when there was no response from HP for
extended periods of time. And, we now have the VAX debacle.
No one is going to audit a Hobbyist System so there is little
if any chance of it becoming a problem.

Production systems on the other hand...

You know, our legal department refused permission to sign
the license for the last Edu Program offered by HP. I
hardly expect they would have allowed generation of our
own licenses using pakgen.c.

bill

On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these
>> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>> rather than one time license sales.
>
> I agree with this entirely.

Given that VMS is mostly for professional usage and that
software piracy is not common for professional usage, then
it is not likely that software piracy is a major problem.

>   It is not cheaters that VSI needs to
> fear it is management who come out of MBA school with no knowledge
> of anything not Microsoft or Linux and will see moving from VMS to
> one of those as "modernization" of a legacy system.

If you replace a system with a significantly newer system then
it seems fair to call it a modernization.

One just need to understand that newer does not guarantee
better.

>   Go read some
> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems".  Not specifically
> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.

Being old is not a problem in itself.

It becomes a problem if:
- it is out of support
- it is hard to find people with skills
- it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
integrate with
- it is expensive to maintain

Arne

On 8/7/2021 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia. Who and where are these
>>> "cheaters"? I don't know of any. Does anyone? Most of us are just
>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>> revenue to do so. Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>> I agree with this entirely.
>
> Given that VMS is mostly for professional usage and that
> software piracy is not common for professional usage, then
> it is not likely that software piracy is a major problem.
>
>> It is not cheaters that VSI needs to
>> fear it is management who come out of MBA school with no knowledge
>> of anything not Microsoft or Linux and will see moving from VMS to
>> one of those as "modernization" of a legacy system.
>
> If you replace a system with a significantly newer system then
> it seems fair to call it a modernization.
>
> One just need to understand that newer does not guarantee
> better.
>
>> Go read some
>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems". Not specifically
>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>
> Being old is not a problem in itself.
>
> It becomes a problem if:
> - it is out of support
> - it is hard to find people with skills
> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
> integrate with
> - it is expensive to maintain
>
> Arne

It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
is using x86 VMS. From the beginning, they implement some sort of
reporting scheme. For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI. There
may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be handled.

Now, if someone is on VAX, Alpha, or itanic and has a valid HP license,
if they wish to stay there, that could be done. If someone wants to
"cheat" on VAX, Alpha, or itanic, why does VSI care, x86 is their
immediate future.

--
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 8/7/21 5:56 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 8/7/2021 7:59 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 8/6/21 8:59 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these
>>> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just
>>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need
>>> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue
>>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>> I agree with this entirely.
>
> Given that VMS is mostly for professional usage and that
> software piracy is not common for professional usage, then
> it is not likely that software piracy is a major problem.
>
>>                             It is not cheaters that VSI needs to
>> fear it is management who come out of MBA school with no knowledge
>> of anything not Microsoft or Linux and will see moving from VMS to
>> one of those as "modernization" of a legacy system.
>
> If you replace a system with a significantly newer system then
> it seems fair to call it a modernization.

I quoted modernization because it is usual used as an epithet like
"legacy". It is frequently change for changes sake.

>
> One just need to understand that newer does not guarantee
> better.

And change for changes sake is seldom a good thing.

>
>>                                                       Go read some
>> of the stuff on LinkedIn about "Legacy Systems".  Not specifically
>> about VMS but the attitude is even if it still does the job if it
>> is old (ie. COBOL) it is bad and a problem.
>
> Being old is not a problem in itself.

Being old is never a problem in itself. I'm old and regularly
compete with people less than half my age, successfully.

>
> It becomes a problem if:
> - it is out of support

Lack of support for one part of an IS should not be a reason to
abandon it in its entirety.

> - it is hard to find people with skills

That is a fixable problem.

https://edscoop.com/college-legacy-programming-langauges-grant-bill/

> - it does not integrate with newer system that it need to
>   integrate with

With the exception of Dave's system (I actually know very little
about VMS BASIC) I can think of no legacy system that can not be
integrated into a modern system. I have had no problems doing web
programming with COBOL.

> - it is expensive to maintain

In the case of legacy systems expense is more objective than
subjective. A little research will show how the majority of
these modernization projects usually run way over budget and
seldom accomplish their original goal.

bill

On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> wrote:
>
> I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
> of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
> company was a bit disorganised.
>

There is a major change between then and now.

Back in those days hardware cost a _lot_ of money. If you had enough
money to buy the hardware, you also had enough money to buy the
software.

These days hardware is cheap compared to the cost of the software.
There is a much stronger motivation for some people to try and
break the licencing so they can run the expensive software on
cheap hardware.

The old LMF is no longer suitable for purpose in this new world
with its different dynamics and I would be absolutely amazed
if VSI were not looking at making the licencing software much
stronger as a result.

Simon.

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

On 8/7/2021 6:40 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> It has occurred to me that VSI should have the opportunity to know who
> is using x86 VMS.  From the beginning, they implement some sort of
> reporting scheme.  For VMS to run, it has to check in with VSI.  There
> may be situations where such is not feasible, but, that can also be
> handled.

In general such requiring internet access or as a fallback a
phone call is not popular with users.

And if there is little cheating then VSI already knows
the user base because they know what licenses has been
issued.

Arne