On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote:
> "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright
> infringements for the signal value."
>
> In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a
> copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on
> those if you have registered a copyright).

That "actual" damage has sometimes been set pretty high.

> There's also the notion
> of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the
> US that support the notion that using software that is only protected
> by copyright for personal use is "fair use".

I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
for personal use - that is not the common interpretation.

> Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue
> infringement or risk losing trademark protection. This is one of the
> factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local
> businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their
> trademark protected logos, names, etc. Many people don't understand
> that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to
> stop it.

Even though they do not lose rights by not pursuing a copyright case
then they may still do for the signal value.

Bank robbery does not become legal if shoplifting cases were
all dismissed, but some think that going hard on the the small
cases help deter the big cases.

Note that it is irrelevant whether that deterrence actual happen
or not - the relevant part is that some believe it and act accordingly.

Arne

On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:28:29 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
>> On 4/18/2022 6:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Chris Townley <ne...@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like murky waters, probably even for I.P. Lawyers and courts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But are HP even interested?
>>>
>>> No, that's the basic problem.
>>> HP are not interested enough to go after people illegally using the software
>>> but they ALSO are not interested enough to release the software openly either.
>>> --scott
>>>
>> So then, just what is the problem?
>>
>> As we used to say in the pickup basketball games, "no blood, no foul".
>> --
>> 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
> "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright
> infringements for the signal value."
>
> In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on those if you have registered a copyright). There's also the notion of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the US that support the notion that using software that is only protected by copyright for personal use is "fair use".
>
> Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue infringement or risk losing trademark protection. This is one of the factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their trademark protected logos, names, etc. Many people don't understand that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to stop it.
>
> This whole thing is complicated, though, by the fact that it is licensed software and that you have to use a fake key not issued by HP to use it. One of the reasons software licensing became commonplace is exactly because copyright protection is so weak. So HP is in a much stronger position due to stop people than they would be if they were merely depending on copyright. And it is hard to argue innocence if you go to the trouble of generating a key and install VAX/VMS.
>

How about not using any keys? Simple patch will disable LMF checking.

But, first HP would have to know about such usage, and as mentioned, how many at
HP/HPe still remember VMS? Then go to the bother of pursuing such use.

Keep in mind, I doubt anyone is suggesting commercial use.

How will anyone know if a person is using VAX/VMS as a hobbyist?

--
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 Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:06:15 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote:
> > "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright
> > infringements for the signal value."
> >
> > In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a
> > copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on
> > those if you have registered a copyright).
> That "actual" damage has sometimes been set pretty high.
> > There's also the notion
> > of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the
> > US that support the notion that using software that is only protected
> > by copyright for personal use is "fair use".
> I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
> for personal use - that is not the common interpretation.
> > Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue
> > infringement or risk losing trademark protection. This is one of the
> > factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local
> > businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their
> > trademark protected logos, names, etc. Many people don't understand
> > that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to
> > stop it.
> Even though they do not lose rights by not pursuing a copyright case
> then they may still do for the signal value.
>
> Bank robbery does not become legal if shoplifting cases were
> all dismissed, but some think that going hard on the the small
> cases help deter the big cases.
>
> Note that it is irrelevant whether that deterrence actual happen
> or not - the relevant part is that some believe it and act accordingly.
>
> Arne

"That "actual" damage has sometimes been set pretty high"

If the license cost is high, then yes, the actual damages would be set high..
And might be tripled by the court if punitive damages are awarded to the
copyright holder. If you start distributing it then actual damages grows,
of course.

"I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
for personal use - that is not the common interpretation."

Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.

Believe it or not, there is actually a reason for software licenses, and the
weak protections provided by copyright are one very large component of
that.

Of course, if the software is access-protected and you circumvent that to
grab and make a copy this, you run afoul of the DMCA, even if your actual use
afterwards passes the Fair Use test. This law was passed because of the
weakness of copyright protection but is draconian and went far beyond the
needs of reasonable protection. And penalties are steep. But DRM steps
have to be taken by the copyright holder for the DMCA to apply.

It is the avoidance of the licensing process and the forging of license keys which
is the serious side of this.

Meanwhile there's an entire organization of people who seek to preserve software
for historical reasons or so people can research/study the software devoted to
establishing codes of conduct and a legal framework for doing so. Not just
simple copyright but licensing restrictions as well.

https://cmsimpact.org/code/fair-use-software-preservation/

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:04:59 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:28:29 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2022 6:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>> Chris Townley <ne...@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looks like murky waters, probably even for I.P. Lawyers and courts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But are HP even interested?
> >>>
> >>> No, that's the basic problem.
> >>> HP are not interested enough to go after people illegally using the software
> >>> but they ALSO are not interested enough to release the software openly either.
> >>> --scott
> >>>
> >> So then, just what is the problem?
> >>
> >> As we used to say in the pickup basketball games, "no blood, no foul".
> >> --
> >> 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
> > "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright
> > infringements for the signal value."
> >
> > In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on those if you have registered a copyright). There's also the notion of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the US that support the notion that using software that is only protected by copyright for personal use is "fair use".
> >
> > Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue infringement or risk losing trademark protection. This is one of the factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their trademark protected logos, names, etc. Many people don't understand that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to stop it.
> >
> > This whole thing is complicated, though, by the fact that it is licensed software and that you have to use a fake key not issued by HP to use it. One of the reasons software licensing became commonplace is exactly because copyright protection is so weak. So HP is in a much stronger position due to stop people than they would be if they were merely depending on copyright. And it is hard to argue innocence if you go to the trouble of generating a key and install VAX/VMS.
> >
> How about not using any keys? Simple patch will disable LMF checking.
>
> But, first HP would have to know about such usage, and as mentioned, how many at
> HP/HPe still remember VMS? Then go to the bother of pursuing such use.
>
> Keep in mind, I doubt anyone is suggesting commercial use.
>
> How will anyone know if a person is using VAX/VMS as a hobbyist?
> --
> 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

I assume you'd have to do that for all of the layered products too?

One recognized example of Fair Use is that if you copy something for personal use to make
a derivative product for your own use, that's Fair Use. For instance, making a painting of a
photograph to develop your own skills. Now if you take that painting and sell it, that's not
Fair Use and therefore a copyright infringement.

A rather interesting argument might be that copying and then patching the software
to avoid the license check is just the generating of a derivative work for yourself, thus
Fair Use.

Hmmm ... but if this licensing check is considered access protection under the DMCA
you are guilty of a crime. Sigh. But note this is because of the DMCA, not simple copyright,
and the DMCA is (rightly, IMO) hated in a way that copyright law is not.

On 4/19/22 21:04, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 11:53 AM, Don Baccus wrote:
>> On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:28:29 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2022 6:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Chris Townley <ne...@cct-net.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like murky waters, probably even for I.P. Lawyers and courts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But are HP even interested?
>>>>
>>>> No, that's the basic problem.
>>>> HP are not interested enough to go after people illegally using the
>>>> software
>>>> but they ALSO are not interested enough to release the software
>>>> openly either.
>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>> So then, just what is the problem?
>>>
>>> As we used to say in the pickup basketball games, "no blood, no foul".
>>> --
>>> 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
>> "Legal department may have a policy of pursuing all copyright
>> infringements for the signal value."
>>
>> In the US, at least, you can only recover actual damages in a
>> copyright infringement suit (enhanced with punitive damages based on
>> those if you have registered a copyright).  There's also the notion of
>> "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the US
>> that support the notion that using software that is only protected by
>> copyright for personal use is "fair use".
>>
>> Copyright law is unlike trademark law where you need to pursue
>> infringement or risk losing trademark protection.  This is one of the
>> factors that leads to companies forcing small, insignificant, local
>> businesses to stop using look-alike logos or similar names to their
>> trademark protected logos, names, etc.  Many people don't understand
>> that legally, once they become aware of the use, they must try to stop
>> it.
>>
>> This whole thing is complicated, though, by the fact that it is
>> licensed software and that you have to use a fake key not issued by HP
>> to use it.  One of the reasons software licensing became commonplace
>> is exactly because copyright protection is so weak.  So HP is in a
>> much stronger position due to stop people than they would be if they
>> were merely depending on copyright.  And it is hard to argue innocence
>> if you go to the trouble of generating a key and install VAX/VMS.
>>
>
> How about not using any keys?  Simple patch will disable LMF checking.
>
> But, first HP would have to know about such usage, and as mentioned, how
> many at HP/HPe still remember VMS?  Then go to the bother of pursuing
> such use.
>
> Keep in mind, I doubt anyone is suggesting commercial use.
>
> How will anyone know if a person is using VAX/VMS as a hobbyist?
>

Just pick all the names out of c.o.v. :-)

bill

On 2022-04-19, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/22 16:40, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 18:05 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> IOW, with these time-limited production licences, if VSI goes bust,
>>> then those licences will eventually stop working and hence so will
>>> the customer systems those licences are installed on.
>>
>> That's particularly worrying and that's something VSI needs to be aware
>> of *OR* VMS will go the way of dinosaurs for good.
>
> Unless they have their heads very deep in the sand, VSI is very
> aware of what people think of the situation.
>

Being aware of what people think and realising that the strength
of feeling about this is a real problem for VSI are two different
things unfortunately.

Simon.

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

On 4/19/2022 9:22 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
> "I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
> for personal use - that is not the common interpretation."
>
> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.

Fair use is a well known concept.

But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.

Not even close.

Arne

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

(snip)

> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.

I suppose.

But if it really is private use, how will anyone who could possibly sue,
know about it?

Someone mentioned the names for this list, but those might not be using
VMS at all, or might be using it on non-VAX. Just because someone
subscribes to this list, would (likely) not be enough for a search warrant
to search a house for all VAX/VMS users.

Reminds me of discussion about certain sexual acts (between consenting
adults) that were (and maybe still are) illegal. How exactly were
violators to be found?

People have mentioned ways to get around the license problem, including
resetting the date, and that might even violate DMCA, but I don't remember
anyone mentioning actually doing it, and especially not the location of the
machine, for issuing the search warrant.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/19/2022 9:22 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
> > "I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
> > for personal use - that is not the common interpretation."
> >
> > Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
> > material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
> > that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
> > someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.
> Fair use is a well known concept.
>
> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>
> Not even close.
>
> Arne

"Fair use is a well known concept.

But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.

Not even close."

You even quoted what I said:

"> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes."

And you still thwack at a strawman?

Now when I said this:

"> There's also the notion
> of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the
> US that support the notion that using software that is only protected
> by copyright for personal use is "fair use"."

Obviously I should've provided more context when I first stated this,
but I was unaware that you are enamored of constructing strawmen
then propping them up and knocking them down over and over again.

Note that

"Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use"

Is not a statement that

"private use automatically makes the use fall under fair use."

That last is your own private strawman which you then knocked down
by saying:

"private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use."

Done with you.

On 4/20/2022 8:26 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 4/19/2022 9:22 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
>>> "I would not count on courts allowing software copying as long as it is
>>> for personal use - that is not the common interpretation."
>>>
>>> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
>>> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
>>> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
>>> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.
>> Fair use is a well known concept.
>>
>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
> "Fair use is a well known concept.
>
> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>
> Not even close."
>
> You even quoted what I said:
>
> "> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
>> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
>> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
>> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes."
>
> And you still thwack at a strawman?

That was a reference to below:

> Now when I said this:
>
> "> There's also the notion
>> of "fair use" and the fact that there are some court rulings in the
>> US that support the notion that using software that is only protected
>> by copyright for personal use is "fair use"."
>
> Obviously I should've provided more context when I first stated this,

Like that it is wrong?

:-)

> but I was unaware that you are enamored of constructing strawmen
> then propping them up and knocking them down over and over again.

Telling that what you actual wrote is wrong is hardly a strawman.

> Note that
>
> "Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use"

Everybody know that:
- it is true
- it is irrelevant for the topic at hand

Arne

On 4/20/2022 7:12 PM, gah4 wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>
> I suppose.
>
> But if it really is private use, how will anyone who could possibly sue,
> know about it?
>
> Someone mentioned the names for this list, but those might not be using
> VMS at all, or might be using it on non-VAX. Just because someone
> subscribes to this list, would (likely) not be enough for a search warrant
> to search a house for all VAX/VMS users.
>
> Reminds me of discussion about certain sexual acts (between consenting
> adults) that were (and maybe still are) illegal. How exactly were
> violators to be found?
>
> People have mentioned ways to get around the license problem, including
> resetting the date, and that might even violate DMCA, but I don't remember
> anyone mentioning actually doing it, and especially not the location of the
> machine, for issuing the search warrant.

There are two separate questions:
1) is it legal?
2) if not - is there a risk of getting caught?

Arne

On 4/20/2022 8:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 7:12 PM, gah4 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>>
>> I suppose.
>>
>> But if it really is private use, how will anyone who could possibly sue,
>> know about it?
>>
>> Someone mentioned the names for this list, but those might not be using
>> VMS at all, or might be using it on non-VAX. Just because someone
>> subscribes to this list, would (likely) not be enough for a search warrant
>> to search a house for all VAX/VMS users.
>>
>> Reminds me of discussion about certain sexual acts (between consenting
>> adults) that were (and maybe still are) illegal. How exactly were
>> violators to be found?
>>
>> People have mentioned ways to get around the license problem, including
>> resetting the date, and that might even violate DMCA, but I don't remember
>> anyone mentioning actually doing it, and especially not the location of the
>> machine, for issuing the search warrant.
>
> There are two separate questions:
> 1) is it legal?

If anyone is willing to enforce any copyrights, then no.

> 2) if not - is there a risk of getting caught?

Unless someone admits to it, not a chance. Nobody is looking.

--
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 Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:33:57 PM UTC-7, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 8:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 4/20/2022 7:12 PM, gah4 wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>
> >> (snip)
> >>
> >>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
> >>
> >> I suppose.
> >>
> >> But if it really is private use, how will anyone who could possibly sue,
> >> know about it?
> >>
> >> Someone mentioned the names for this list, but those might not be using
> >> VMS at all, or might be using it on non-VAX. Just because someone
> >> subscribes to this list, would (likely) not be enough for a search warrant
> >> to search a house for all VAX/VMS users.
> >>
> >> Reminds me of discussion about certain sexual acts (between consenting
> >> adults) that were (and maybe still are) illegal. How exactly were
> >> violators to be found?
> >>
> >> People have mentioned ways to get around the license problem, including
> >> resetting the date, and that might even violate DMCA, but I don't remember
> >> anyone mentioning actually doing it, and especially not the location of the
> >> machine, for issuing the search warrant.
> >
> > There are two separate questions:
> > 1) is it legal?
> If anyone is willing to enforce any copyrights, then no.
> > 2) if not - is there a risk of getting caught?
> Unless someone admits to it, not a chance. Nobody is looking.
> --
> 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

"That was a reference to below:"

No, you specifically quoted my clarification and responded to it:

">>> Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use of copyrighted
>>> material. You can never count on courts to do anything, of course, but
>>> that is also true of the owner of the copyright if they contemplate suing
>>> someone for using their software at home for Fair Use purposes.
>> Fair use is a well known concept.
>>
>> But private use does not automatically make the use fall under fair use.
>>
>> Not even close."

Now you say you were responding to something I said earlier which I should've
worded better saying it can be fair use, but isn't always fair use. But my clarification
was clear.

And you quoted it. And responded to it. And stated that my clarification was wrong.

"> Note that
>
> "Research, study, etc are all recognized as being Fair Use"

Everybody know that:
- it is true
- it is irrelevant for the topic at hand"

Hobbyists generally are interested in learning about the software, researching it,
studying it. In other words, Fair Use.

So it is very relevant to the topic at hand.

But avoiding the licensing mechanism does not fall under simple Copyright law,
but rather contract law and possibly the DCMA.

Go pound sand.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:01:27 AM UTC+12, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 18:05 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > IOW, with these time-limited production licences, if VSI goes bust,
> > then those licences will eventually stop working and hence so will
> > the customer systems those licences are installed on.
> That's particularly worrying and that's something VSI needs to be aware
> of *OR* VMS will go the way of dinosaurs for good.

Yeah, this is kind of insane.

VSIs biggest competitor does everything VMS can do, has overwhelming
network effects working in its favor *and* its free *and* its open-source.
And if all of that wasn't enough to encourage people to move off of VMS,
VSI has gone and made buying VMS more difficult and licensing more
onerous too.

As a proprietary niche operating system VMS likely has no long-term future.
No one is going to migrate from Linux to an expensive proprietary
operating system that could just stop working one day only to run out of
date 3rd party ports of software they already had on Linux. Existing customers
will slowly leave while no new customers will arrive to replace them. Eventually
it will no longer be possible to buy licenses and the source code will be lost
or deleted.

On 2022-04-21, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:01:27 AM UTC+12, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 18:05 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> > IOW, with these time-limited production licences, if VSI goes bust,
>> > then those licences will eventually stop working and hence so will
>> > the customer systems those licences are installed on.
>> That's particularly worrying and that's something VSI needs to be aware
>> of *OR* VMS will go the way of dinosaurs for good.
>
> Yeah, this is kind of insane.
>
> VSIs biggest competitor does everything VMS can do, has overwhelming
> network effects working in its favor *and* its free *and* its open-source.
> And if all of that wasn't enough to encourage people to move off of VMS,
> VSI has gone and made buying VMS more difficult and licensing more
> onerous too.
>

I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income at
the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't the case.

> As a proprietary niche operating system VMS likely has no long-term future.
> No one is going to migrate from Linux to an expensive proprietary
> operating system that could just stop working one day only to run out of
> date 3rd party ports of software they already had on Linux. Existing customers
> will slowly leave while no new customers will arrive to replace them. Eventually
> it will no longer be possible to buy licenses and the source code will be lost
> or deleted.

I agree with these comments. I think the best way of describing the
future of VMS is that of a "managed decline".

VSI appears to be relying on the remaining VMS user base being a
captive userbase that can't easily move away, but that only works
if being a captive user doesn't become too painful or too risky
for the user.

Things like time-limited production licences increases both the risk
and the pain of remaining on VMS.
Simon.

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

In article <t3uplg$9o9$2@dont-email.me>,
clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:

> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income
> at the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't
> the case.

I suspect they need to become profitable fairly quickly, or risk their
backers pulling the plug.

> VSI appears to be relying on the remaining VMS user base being a
> captive userbase that can't easily move away, but that only works
> if being a captive user doesn't become too painful or too risky
> for the user.

They are not in a position to grow the user base quickly, are they?

Thinking about that, it would seem to require some new kind of
application software that works uniquely well on VMS, presumably because
of some VMS feature that is hard to port to Linux or Windows. The current
VMS user community doesn't seem likely to invent such a thing, nor do VSI
staff, because they're all very experienced with the current ways of
doing things.

The most likely route for such an invention would seem to be from a
company with younger people, who decide to learn VMS and spot a new way
of using it. The correct kind of ISV programme could improve the odds of
this happening, but they still aren't great.

John

On 04/22/22 20:32, John Dallman wrote:
> In article<t3uplg$9o9$2@dont-email.me>,
> clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>
>> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income
>> at the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't
>> the case.
>
> I suspect they need to become profitable fairly quickly, or risk their
> backers pulling the plug.
>
>> VSI appears to be relying on the remaining VMS user base being a
>> captive userbase that can't easily move away, but that only works
>> if being a captive user doesn't become too painful or too risky
>> for the user.
>
> They are not in a position to grow the user base quickly, are they?
>
> Thinking about that, it would seem to require some new kind of
> application software that works uniquely well on VMS, presumably because
> of some VMS feature that is hard to port to Linux or Windows. The current
> VMS user community doesn't seem likely to invent such a thing, nor do VSI
> staff, because they're all very experienced with the current ways of
> doing things.
>
> The most likely route for such an invention would seem to be from a
> company with younger people, who decide to learn VMS and spot a new way
> of using it. The correct kind of ISV programme could improve the odds of
> this happening, but they still aren't great.
>
> John

There's a certain amount of psychology involved as well. Young people
tend to rebel and reject any kind of restriction that stops things
happening or limits their freedom to choose. While they may not
always know what to do with unrestricted freedom, they usually know
what they don't like and would reject out of hand systems with
onerous licensing conditions, when there are dozens of alternatives
around, free, that they can do what they like with, and when they
like it. LMF is just so last century.

Chris

On 4/22/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-04-21, David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:01:27 AM UTC+12, Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2022-04-19 at 18:05 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> IOW, with these time-limited production licences, if VSI goes bust,
>>>> then those licences will eventually stop working and hence so will
>>>> the customer systems those licences are installed on.
>>> That's particularly worrying and that's something VSI needs to be aware
>>> of *OR* VMS will go the way of dinosaurs for good.
>>
>> Yeah, this is kind of insane.
>>
>> VSIs biggest competitor does everything VMS can do, has overwhelming
>> network effects working in its favor *and* its free *and* its open-source.
>> And if all of that wasn't enough to encourage people to move off of VMS,
>> VSI has gone and made buying VMS more difficult and licensing more
>> onerous too.
>
> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income at
> the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't the case.

They have obviously intended the opposite: they want to convert
short term one time revenue to long term recurring revenue.

How it actually works out is to be seen.

Arne

On 2022-04-22, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income at
>> the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't the case.
>
> They have obviously intended the opposite: they want to convert
> short term one time revenue to long term recurring revenue.
>
> How it actually works out is to be seen.
>

The alternative viewpoint is that their short-term aggressive licence
policies could be scaring off VMS the customers who would have made up
their long-term income.

Simon.

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

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:32:56 AM UTC+12, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <t3uplg$9o9$2...@dont-email.me>,
> clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>
> > I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income
> > at the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't
> > the case.
> I suspect they need to become profitable fairly quickly, or risk their
> backers pulling the plug.
> > VSI appears to be relying on the remaining VMS user base being a
> > captive userbase that can't easily move away, but that only works
> > if being a captive user doesn't become too painful or too risky
> > for the user.
> They are not in a position to grow the user base quickly, are they?
>
> Thinking about that, it would seem to require some new kind of
> application software that works uniquely well on VMS, presumably because
> of some VMS feature that is hard to port to Linux or Windows. The current
> VMS user community doesn't seem likely to invent such a thing, nor do VSI
> staff, because they're all very experienced with the current ways of
> doing things.
>
> The most likely route for such an invention would seem to be from a
> company with younger people, who decide to learn VMS and spot a new way
> of using it. The correct kind of ISV programme could improve the odds of
> this happening, but they still aren't great.

As long as OpenVMS is as proprietary and closed source as it is I don't see
younger people paying much attention to it. Its just not worth investing effort
into something that could be taken away at any time. Most open-source
projects are also going to have no interest in maintaining any level of support
for some obscure proprietary operating system too so maintaining ports is
going to be all on VSI.

Of course it doesn't have to be this way - Sun has proven that. OpenSolaris
is still being actively maintained and enhanced under the name Illumos.
There are a variety of Illumos distributions to choose from, Joyent use Illumos
as the basis for their cloud platform (SmartOS), and there is some NAS
product that uses it too. Meanwhile the closed-source variant of Solaris
will probably disappear when support for 11.4 ends in 2034.

This is probably the only realistic path forward for OpenVMS that doesn't see
it managed into extinction. If it were open-sourced then the rest of the industry
might pay it some attention, perhaps a community might form and pick up
some of the maintenance and porting burden. It might get used in some new
products and solutions. Existing users would have less of a reason to abandon
it. And VSI would be uniquely positioned to provide support to commercial users.

But I don't see that happening. Too risky, too hard. And I suspect many
OpenVMS users would rather see the platform go extinct than be
open-sourced.

On 4/25/2022 1:20 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-04-22, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income at
>>> the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't the case.
>>
>> They have obviously intended the opposite: they want to convert
>> short term one time revenue to long term recurring revenue.
>>
>> How it actually works out is to be seen.
>>
>
> The alternative viewpoint is that their short-term aggressive licence
> policies could be scaring off VMS the customers who would have made up
> their long-term income.
>
> Simon.
>

What if a number of VMS customers, currently with support contracts, just
declared "no, we won't accept that"? Do you really think VSI would let them
just walk?

--
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

In article <3a643f5c-5df8-4743-b466-a5ae1599aa38n@googlegroups.com>,
dgsoftnz@gmail.com (David Goodwin) wrote:

> OpenSolaris is still being actively maintained and enhanced under
> the name Illumos. There are a variety of Illumos distributions
> to choose from, Joyent use Illumos as the basis for their cloud
> platform (SmartOS), and there is some NAS product that uses it too.

Not all that widely used, though. My employers provided several products
for SPARC Solaris for decades, and phased it out because Oracle were
making less and less sense. Never had any customer interest in Illuminos,
or even Solaris x64 when that was still going. All the plausible
customers for that just went to Linux.

> Meanwhile the closed-source variant of Solaris will probably
> disappear when support for 11.4 ends in 2034.

Certainly will.

> This is probably the only realistic path forward for OpenVMS that
> doesn't see it managed into extinction. If it were open-sourced
> then the rest of the industry might pay it some attention, perhaps
> a community might form and pick up some of the maintenance and
> porting burden. It might get used in some new products and solutions.
> Existing users would have less of a reason to abandon it. And VSI
> would be uniquely positioned to provide support to commercial users.

Quite possibly, but don't forget that VSI don't own OpenVMS. They have a
license from HPE to maintain, support and upgrade it, but they don't own
the intellectual property. They don't have the ability to open its source.
HPE seem most unlikely to spend the lawyer-years required to get all the
rights clear.

As an additional logistical point, open-sourcing VMS while building it
requires using out-of-production Itanium servers would be suicidal: it
has to be sustainable on commodity hardware first.

John

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:28:10 AM UTC-7, John Dallman wrote:

(snip)

> As an additional logistical point, open-sourcing VMS while building it
> requires using out-of-production Itanium servers would be suicidal: it
> has to be sustainable on commodity hardware first.

DEC nicely released the 36 bit OS for us to use, though with only
(from them) out of production hardware. I am not so sure when
emulators came out, but it would not have been hard to write one
by then.

I suspect VAX is nicer to write an emulator for than Alpha or Itanium,
but all are possible to keep VMS running on new hardware.

On 4/25/22 22:37, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 1:20 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-04-22, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 4/22/2022 1:46 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I keep wondering if VSI has gone for a policy of short-term income at
>>>> the expense of damaging long-term income and I hope that isn't the
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> They have obviously intended the opposite: they want to convert
>>> short term one time revenue to long term recurring revenue.
>>>
>>> How it actually works out is to be seen.
>>>
>>
>> The alternative viewpoint is that their short-term aggressive licence
>> policies could be scaring off VMS the customers who would have made up
>> their long-term income.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> What if a number of VMS customers, currently with support contracts,
> just declared "no, we won't accept that"?  Do you really think VSI would
> let them just walk?
>

Are you saying that VSI would give some people a better deal while the
majority would be stuck with the original plan? You don't think that
would drive them away?

bill

On 2022-04-26, gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 1:28:10 AM UTC-7, John Dallman wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> As an additional logistical point, open-sourcing VMS while building it
>> requires using out-of-production Itanium servers would be suicidal: it
>> has to be sustainable on commodity hardware first.
>
> DEC nicely released the 36 bit OS for us to use, though with only
> (from them) out of production hardware. I am not so sure when
> emulators came out, but it would not have been hard to write one
> by then.
>
> I suspect VAX is nicer to write an emulator for than Alpha or Itanium,
> but all are possible to keep VMS running on new hardware.
>

There are full system emulators for all architectures I am aware of
apart from Itanium, which should tell you something. I once spent a
weekend looking at the possibility of writing one, and came to the
conclusion of basically "forget that!".

Even with the initial help from Ski for the instruction set component,
writing an Itanium emulator would be a massive job and not all the
required bits and knowledge are freely available.

For example, you can no longer freely download the Itanium firmware
that such an emulator would require.

Simon.

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