On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>
>
> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
> do this bypass ?
>
> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?

I'll defer answering that question, for now.

Instead, I'll ask these questions.

What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?

What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?

--
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 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>
>>
>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>> do this bypass ?
>>
>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>
> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>

So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?

> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>
> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>

Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.

You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.

> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>

You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
to you.

That is your legal option to remove this risk.

Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?

They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
to do what you suggest.

Simon.

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

On 12/10/21 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>
>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>> of ethics and try to do the right thing.
>
> I'd agree 100%.
>
>> In the real world though,
>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>
> Again, I agree.
>
>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>> alive.
>>
>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>> own choices...
>
> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available to
> pay, than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is
> necessary.  While there may be those who feel I should just do without,
> I do not agree with them.
>
> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
> have support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
> However, should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such
> support, and the license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will
> bypass the licensing to keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>
> For those who think we should just let our customers roll over and die,
> I have only one comment.
>
> STOP USING MY WHEEL, IT IS NOT FREEWARE, IT IS NOT ABANDONED!
>

A good businessman would have kept his ear to the ground, heard
the oncoming stampede and taken the necessary actions to avoid it.
If that means finding a new product, then so be it. But stealing
other people's property is never justified.

bill

On 12/10/21 1:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
>>> have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>> However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>> and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>> licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>
>>
>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>> do this bypass ?
>>
>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>
> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>
> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>
> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>
> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's
> business?
>

Sounds like bad planning on the part of the business. Even the PDP-11
didn't just die one day. Same thing with Pr1me. And I am sure most
other companies that have gone the way of the dodo. If one suspects
they are running on a system with such a potential, it is part of
their due diligence to look for solutions before the day of disaster.

bill

On 12/10/2021 1:21 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-12-10, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <helbig@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>> Almost all books and so on have something like "All rights reserved. No
>> portion of this document may be reproduced in any form without prior
>> written permission from the publisher."
>
> Thanks Phillip. I had forgotten about that.

That text is not even necessary.

Copyright for books also require explicit permission (not
no explicit prohibition).

And that is how it should be in all countries that signed the
Berne convention.

Even though in this particular case there is a timing issue. VMS 4.0 is
from before the US signed the Berne convention in 1989, which may
complicate things.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>> alive.
>>
>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>> own choices...
>
> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available to
> pay, than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is
> necessary.  While there may be those who feel I should just do without,
> I do not agree with them.
>
> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
> have support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
> However, should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such
> support, and the license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will
> bypass the licensing to keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.

I really don't get that.

If the same customers needed a loan and the bank said no would
bank robbery be justified?

I don't think so.

I also somewhat doubt that those companies would agree to run their
business on illegal software.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>
> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
> alive.
>
> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
> own choices...

I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.

There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
solution here.

Arne

Hi,
> Almost all books and so on have something like "All rights reserved. No
> portion of this document may be reproduced in any form without prior
> written permission from the publisher."
>
> There are exceptions for quoting short portions for criticism, fair use,
> and so on.
>
And tons of documents on bitsavers contain these clause.
Nonetheless we still scan, publish and use them.
Maybe we steal, but nobody complains and nobody has a financial loss.

Surely had my VMS 4.0 source code fiche pack strict licenses on it, in 1985.
Would HPE enforce these today? (I learned HPE still owns the OpenVMS VAX
rights, VSI got Alpha, Itanium and x64).

Whom to ask?

Joerg

On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>> do this bypass ?
>>>
>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>
>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>
>
> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?

I'm just not saying ...

>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>
>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>
>
> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>
> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.

If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then there isn't an
issue, is there?

If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to really give
a damn?

>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>>
>
> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
> to you.

Porting is not an option.

> That is your legal option to remove this risk.
>
> Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
> time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
> will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?
>
> They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
> to do what you suggest.

Ok Simon, I'll turn things around. If you had customers depending on VMS, or
any software, and the vendor went away, and your customers needed to continue to
use their applications, what would you do? Would you do whatever was necessary
for your customers to continue, or, would you tell your customers "too bad, you
lose"?

I'm talking right now, today, no time for your port, or anything else.

--
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 12/10/2021 2:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 1:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>> do this bypass ?
>>>
>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>
>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>
>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>
>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>
>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>>
>
> Sounds like bad planning on the part of the business. Even the PDP-11
> didn't just die one day. Same thing with Pr1me. And I am sure most
> other companies that have gone the way of the dodo. If one suspects
> they are running on a system with such a potential, it is part of
> their due diligence to look for solutions before the day of disaster.

So what are you saying? Everyone using VMS today should start a port and dump
VMS? Be specific.

--
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 12/10/2021 2:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>
>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing.
>>
>> I'd agree 100%.
>>
>>> In the real world though,
>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>
>> Again, I agree.
>>
>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>> alive.
>>>
>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>> own choices...
>>
>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available to pay,
>> than what? Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not agree
>> with them.
>>
>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>
>> For those who think we should just let our customers roll over and die, I have
>> only one comment.
>>
>> STOP USING MY WHEEL, IT IS NOT FREEWARE, IT IS NOT ABANDONED!
>>
>
> A good businessman would have kept his ear to the ground, heard
> the oncoming stampede and taken the necessary actions to avoid it.
> If that means finding a new product, then so be it. But stealing
> other people's property is never justified.

We are talking hypothetical here. I'm not advocating anything today.

Don't vendors make a commitment to customers when they sell them the use of
something like VMS? If so, and the vendor defaults, isn't that an issue? Don't
customers have any rights? Is it really stealing to continue to use a product
that one purchased in good faith?

--
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 12/10/2021 3:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>> alive.
>>>
>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>> own choices...
>>
>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available to pay,
>> than what? Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not agree
>> with them.
>>
>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the licensing to
>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>
> I really don't get that.

No, you really don't.

> If the same customers needed a loan and the bank said no would
> bank robbery be justified?

We are not discussing something an entity doesn't already have. We are
discussing a product that customers have bought and paid for. Your example is
way wrong.

> I don't think so.
>
> I also somewhat doubt that those companies would agree to run their
> business on illegal software.

That's the question, isn't it? Is it really illegal to use a product one has
already purchased and paid for?

In the hypothetical situation where a vendor requires a customer to continue
with support, if the vendor is no longer available to provide such support, is
that any fault of the customer? It would be the vendor that changed things, not
the customer. The vendor would have broken the contract, not the customer.

--
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 12/10/2021 3:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>
>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>> alive.
>>
>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>> own choices...
>
> I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.
>
> There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
> solution here.

Do you think that breaking a contract, either written or implied, is ethical and
legal?

--
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 12/10/2021 5:03 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 3:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available
>>> to pay,
>>> than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not
>>> agree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
>>> have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>> However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>> and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>> licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>
>> I really don't get that.
>
> No, you really don't.
>
>> If the same customers needed a loan and the bank said no would
>> bank robbery be justified?
>
> We are not discussing something an entity doesn't already have.  We are
> discussing a product that customers have bought and paid for.  Your
> example is way wrong.

I don't think we are discussing something that the customer have bought
and paid for.

If that is the case there is nothing to discuss. Continuing is legal and
it does not require any work.

>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I also somewhat doubt that those companies would agree to run their
>> business on illegal software.
>
> That's the question, isn't it?  Is it really illegal to use a product
> one has already purchased and paid for?

If one has paid for an forever license then one can legally use forever.

If one has paid for an N year license then one can legally use for
N years. After N years it becomes illegal because it has not been paid
for.

That should be pretty obvious.

> In the hypothetical situation where a vendor requires a customer to
> continue with support, if the vendor is no longer available to provide
> such support, is that any fault of the customer?  It would be the vendor
> that changed things, not the customer.  The vendor would have broken the
> contract, not the customer.

I can't follow you.

Customer pays vendor for a license for N years. Vendor provide such a
license.

Vendor is legally and morally obliged to ensure that the license
work for N years.

Vendor does not have any legal or moral obligations after the N years.
Customer has a legal and moral obligation to stop using software after
the N years.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 3:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>>
>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>> alive.
>>>
>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>> own choices...
>>
>> I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.
>>
>> There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
>> solution here.
>
> Do you think that breaking a contract, either written or implied, is
> ethical and legal?

It is not.

And if you have a contract that promises you the ability to buy a
product forever, then you have a good case.

But I have never heard of any such contract.

You buy something, you use that and when it is used/worn out/expired
then you have no guarantee that you can buy the same thing again.

Arne

On 12/10/21 5:06 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 3:12 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing. In the real world though,
>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>>
>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>> alive.
>>>
>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>> own choices...
>>
>> I don't think there is much ethical dilemma here.
>>
>> There should be no doubt that following the law is the etical
>> solution here.
>
> Do you think that breaking a contract, either written or implied, is
> ethical and legal?
>
>

There is no such thing as an implied contract.

bill

On 12/10/21 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our
>>>>> customers have
>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>>>> However,
>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>> licensing to
>>>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>
>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>
>>
>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>
> I'm just not saying ...
>
>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>
>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>
>>
>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>
>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>
> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then there
> isn't an issue, is there?
>
> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to
> really give a damn?

The owner of the IP might. And their lawyers might see violators as
low hanging fruit to recover some of their losses. :-)

>
>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's
>>> business?
>>>
>>
>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>> to you.
>
> Porting is not an option.

Porting is always an option. There is nothing done on a computer
that can not be done on another computer. You may think the work
required is excessive and you might think the cost is excessive
but that doesn't mean it can not be done.

>
>> That is your legal option to remove this risk.
>>
>> Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
>> time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
>> will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?
>>
>> They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
>> to do what you suggest.
>
> Ok Simon, I'll turn things around.  If you had customers depending on
> VMS, or any software, and the vendor went away, and your customers
> needed to continue to use their applications, what would you do?  Would
> you do whatever was necessary for your customers to continue, or, would
> you tell your customers "too bad, you lose"?

A wise man wouldn't wait until the drop dead date to fix a problem.
The customers complaint would not be with you, necessarily, it would
be with the owners of VMS or that other software that just went away.
But, no company I know of has just dropped dead all of a sudden.
There are always warning signs. And due diligence says when you
start to see warning signs you should start your preparations for
launching the lifeboats.

>
> I'm talking right now, today, no time for your port, or anything else.
>

See above.

bill

On 12/10/21 4:52 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 2:44 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 1:36 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our
>>>>> customers have
>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>>>> However,
>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>> licensing to
>>>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>
>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>
>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>
>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>
>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>
>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's
>>> business?
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like bad planning on the part of the business.  Even the PDP-11
>> didn't just die one day. Same thing with Pr1me.  And I am sure most
>> other companies that have gone the way of the dodo.  If one suspects
>> they are running on a system with such a potential, it is part of
>> their due diligence to look for solutions before the day of disaster.
>
> So what are you saying?  Everyone using VMS today should start a port
> and dump VMS?  Be specific.
>
>

If they truly think that VMS is going to die, yes. BUt I don't know
that the threat actually exists. But If I were running a company
dependent on it I would keep my eye on options. No cruise ship plans
on sinking but they all care lifeboats.

bill

On 12/10/2021 4:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> We are talking hypothetical here.  I'm not advocating anything today.
>
> Don't vendors make a commitment to customers when they sell them the use
> of something like VMS?  If so, and the vendor defaults, isn't that an
> issue?  Don't customers have any rights?  Is it really stealing to
> continue to use a product that one purchased in good faith?

If VSI sell you a license to run VMS from time 1-JAN-2022 to forever
or from 1-JAN-2022 to 31-DEC-2023, then you have a right to exactly that.

So if you get the license from 1-JAN-2022 to 31-DEC-2023, then you have
rights per license from 1-JAN-2022 to 31-DEC-2023. 1-JAN-2024 that
license grants you no rights.

You should understand what you buy. It is not good faith to expect
more than you actual bought.

Arne

On 12/10/21 4:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 2:40 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you are a developer, you should try to walk the walk in terms
>>>> of ethics and try to do the right thing.
>>>
>>> I'd agree 100%.
>>>
>>>> In the real world though,
>>>> people will do whatever needs to be done to find a solution if there
>>>> seems to b an insurmountable obstacle.
>>>
>>> Again, I agree.
>>>
>>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>>> own choices...
>>>
>>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available
>>> to pay,
>>> than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not
>>> agree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
>>> have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>> However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>> and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>> licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>
>>> For those who think we should just let our customers roll over and
>>> die, I have
>>> only one comment.
>>>
>>> STOP USING MY WHEEL, IT IS NOT FREEWARE, IT IS NOT ABANDONED!
>>>
>>
>> A good businessman would have kept his ear to the ground, heard
>> the oncoming stampede and taken the necessary actions to avoid it.
>> If that means finding a new product, then so be it. But stealing
>> other people's property is never justified.
>
> We are talking hypothetical here.  I'm not advocating anything today.
>
> Don't vendors make a commitment to customers when they sell them the use
> of something like VMS?

Only what is stated in the contract. And nothing is implied.

> If so, and the vendor defaults, isn't that an
> issue?  Don't customers have any rights?

Only what is spelled out in the contract. We have been told here
numerous times about government commitments affecting this kind
of stuff. Why did IAS not go to Mentec with the rest of the
PDP-11 stuff? Because DEC was contractually required to maintain
it (pretty sure for the government). When those contracts ended
IAS just went away.

> Is it really stealing to
> continue to use a product that one purchased in good faith?
>

Beyond the limits of a valid contract, yes.

bill

On 12/10/21 5:03 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 3:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 10:46 AM, chris wrote:
>>>> The other point is, do the original owners really care enough, or
>>>> even at all, when so much licensed software is out there and is
>>>> obsolete and no longer sold ?. Similar case here, where I was trying
>>>> find detail on the write boot block code for early SunOs for historical
>>>> purposes. Found the complete source cd online and was able to complete
>>>> the task. No profit involved, other than keeping some old machines
>>>> alive.
>>>>
>>>> Ethical dilemmas everywhere in life and we all have to make our
>>>> own choices...
>>>
>>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available
>>> to pay,
>>> than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not
>>> agree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers
>>> have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.
>>> However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support,
>>> and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>> licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>
>> I really don't get that.
>
> No, you really don't.
>
>> If the same customers needed a loan and the bank said no would
>> bank robbery be justified?
>
> We are not discussing something an entity doesn't already have.  We are
> discussing a product that customers have bought and paid for.  Your
> example is way wrong.
>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I also somewhat doubt that those companies would agree to run their
>> business on illegal software.
>
> That's the question, isn't it?  Is it really illegal to use a product
> one has already purchased and paid for?

You do not purchase VMS. You buy a license to use it within the terms
of the license. Period. You never own a copy of VMS. Read the license.

>
> In the hypothetical situation where a vendor requires a customer to
> continue with support, if the vendor is no longer available to provide
> such support, is that any fault of the customer?  It would be the vendor
> that changed things, not the customer.  The vendor would have broken the
> contract, not the customer.
>

The would be required to continue to provide the service called for
in the contract. When the contract expires they are not required to
institute a new contract. A contract is an agreement between both
parties. Either one can refuse to renew. Many previous VMS customers
have already done that. Can they be required to continue to license
and use VMS? Works both ways.

bill

On 12/10/2021 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>
>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>
>>
>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>
>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>
> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then there
> isn't an issue, is there?
>
> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to
> really give a damn?

There can be cases where there is an entity willing
to sue copyright violaters without being willing to
sell a license.

>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's
>>> business?
>>
>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>> to you.
>
> Porting is not an option.

Porting is per definition an option for all software
at all time.

Everybody makes the decision to port or not port
all the time - some think about it - some make a
decision by not thinking about it.

You can look at expected cost, risk and benefits of not
porting and you look at expected cost, risk and benefits
of porting and you make a decision.

A port may be a rewrite from scratch if the code is
totally non-portable. But there are plenty of
technologies out there to pick and chose from.

Arne

On 12/10/2021 6:52 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/10/21 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case in point. We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers have
>>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems. That is our ethics. However,
>>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, and the
>>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>>> licensing to
>>>>>> keep my customer in business. That is my ethics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>
>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to create
>>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>>
>> I'm just not saying ...
>>
>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>
>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>
>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then there isn't
>> an issue, is there?
>>
>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to really
>> give a damn?
>
> The owner of the IP might. And their lawyers might see violators as
> low hanging fruit to recover some of their losses. :-)
>
>>
>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>>> to you.
>>
>> Porting is not an option.
>
> Porting is always an option. There is nothing done on a computer
> that can not be done on another computer. You may think the work
> required is excessive and you might think the cost is excessive
> but that doesn't mean it can not be done.

If the work and cost is excessive, then porting is not an option. Sure,
anything can be done, but, can it be paid for?

>>> That is your legal option to remove this risk.
>>>
>>> Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
>>> time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
>>> will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?
>>>
>>> They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
>>> to do what you suggest.
>>
>> Ok Simon, I'll turn things around. If you had customers depending on VMS, or
>> any software, and the vendor went away, and your customers needed to continue
>> to use their applications, what would you do? Would you do whatever was
>> necessary for your customers to continue, or, would you tell your customers
>> "too bad, you lose"?
>
> A wise man wouldn't wait until the drop dead date to fix a problem.
> The customers complaint would not be with you, necessarily, it would
> be with the owners of VMS or that other software that just went away.
> But, no company I know of has just dropped dead all of a sudden.
> There are always warning signs. And due diligence says when you
> start to see warning signs you should start your preparations for
> launching the lifeboats.
>
>>
>> I'm talking right now, today, no time for your port, or anything else.
>>
>
> See above.
>
> bill
>

So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?

--
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 12/10/2021 7:07 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>
>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>
>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>
>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then there isn't
>> an issue, is there?
>>
>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to really
>> give a damn?
>
> There can be cases where there is an entity willing
> to sue copyright violaters without being willing to
> sell a license.

It occurs to me this can be reversed. Customers have an implied, if not more
specific, contract with the vendor. Should another entity acquire the software,
and not fulfill this contract, perhaps they could be sued to force them to honor
the contract. Acquire the product, you also acquire the responsibilities.

This could be fun. Lawyers could have a field day.

:-)

>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a customer's business?
>>>
>>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>>> to you.
>>
>> Porting is not an option.
>
> Porting is per definition an option for all software
> at all time.

Not when cost is involved.

> Everybody makes the decision to port or not port
> all the time - some think about it - some make a
> decision by not thinking about it.
>
> You can look at expected cost, risk and benefits of not
> porting and you look at expected cost, risk and benefits
> of porting and you make a decision.
>
> A port may be a rewrite from scratch if the code is
> totally non-portable. But there are plenty of
> technologies out there to pick and chose from.
>
> Arne

--
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 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 6:52 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our
>>>>>>> customers have
>>>>>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our
>>>>>>> ethics.  However,
>>>>>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such
>>>>>>> support, and the
>>>>>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the
>>>>>>> licensing to
>>>>>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to
>>>> create
>>>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>>>
>>> I'm just not saying ...
>>>
>>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>>
>>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>>
>>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then
>>> there isn't
>>> an issue, is there?
>>>
>>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to
>>> really
>>> give a damn?
>>
>> The owner of the IP might.  And their lawyers might see violators as
>> low hanging fruit to recover some of their losses.  :-)
>>
>>>
>>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a
>>>>> customer's business?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>>>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Porting is not an option.
>>
>> Porting is always an option.  There is nothing done on a computer
>> that can not be done on another computer.  You may think the work
>> required is excessive and you  might think the cost is excessive
>> but that doesn't mean it can not be done.
>
> If the work and cost is excessive, then porting is not an option.  Sure,
> anything can be done, but, can it be paid for?
>
>>>> That is your legal option to remove this risk.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
>>>> time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
>>>> will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?
>>>>
>>>> They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
>>>> to do what you suggest.
>>>
>>> Ok Simon, I'll turn things around.  If you had customers depending on
>>> VMS, or
>>> any software, and the vendor went away, and your customers needed to
>>> continue
>>> to use their applications, what would you do?  Would you do whatever was
>>> necessary for your customers to continue, or, would you tell your
>>> customers
>>> "too bad, you lose"?
>>
>> A wise man wouldn't wait until the drop dead date to fix a problem.
>> The customers complaint would not be with you, necessarily, it would
>> be with the owners of VMS or that other software that just went away.
>> But, no company I know of has just dropped dead all of a sudden.
>> There are always warning signs.  And due diligence says when you
>> start to see warning signs you should start your preparations for
>> launching the lifeboats.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking right now, today, no time for your port, or anything else.
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
>

Not my call to make. I no longer have a dog in the fight.
If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
Obviously, many already have not. I think the current owners are a
better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
of whether or not to stay. And assume all the risks that entails.

bill