On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:41:20 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2022-07-25, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> VSI has nothing to do with VAX/VMS.
>>
>>
> And you have completely and totally missed the point I am making.

And i get the point you are making (not hard, you bang on about it a lot).

And I disagree.

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 19:33:19 +0100, David Wade wrote:

> Sorry Simon what I should have said was :-
>
> "under no circumstances search the internet for "VMS Liberation Front"
> as the licences they issue are illegal and may damage future hobby
> licences from VSI systems"

And certainly don't Google for things such as PAKGEN.

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

On 7/26/22 16:11, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:41:20 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>> On 2022-07-25, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> VSI has nothing to do with VAX/VMS.
>>>
>>>
>> And you have completely and totally missed the point I am making.
>
> And i get the point you are making (not hard, you bang on about it a lot).
>
> And I disagree.
>

You disagree with his point about Copyrights and yet have a
signature asking for money for what you, apparently, consider
your IP. Interesting.

bill

On 7/26/2022 1:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-25, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> VSI has nothing to do with VAX/VMS.
>>
>
> And you have completely and totally missed the point I am making.

Perhaps because your point is meaningless, at least to me.

Running VAX/VMS on an old MicroVAX 3100 is nowhere the same as running VSI VMS
on an Alpha, or itanic, or x86.

> Knowing you, probably deliberately. :-)

Perhaps ...

--
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 Tue, 26 Jul 2022 16:20:32 -0400, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> On 7/26/22 16:11, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 17:41:20 +0000, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-07-25, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> VSI has nothing to do with VAX/VMS.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And you have completely and totally missed the point I am making.
>>
>> And i get the point you are making (not hard, you bang on about it a
>> lot).
>>
>> And I disagree.
>>
>>
> You disagree with his point about Copyrights and yet have a signature
> asking for money for what you, apparently, consider your IP.
> Interesting.

If you think that signature is serious, you haven't been following long
enough.

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

On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 6:30:04 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

(snip)

> I believe running licenses software without a valid license
> is piracy no matter the current commercial value of that software.

Most likely this machine had a valid license. It might not be
so obvious which version, though.

In the case of emulators, it is not so likely that they ever had
a licensed version.

I wonder how many people have the license for the software
in their TV remote control. Wouldn't want to use one without
the license in hand. (Presumably the one not holding the remote.)

gah4 wrote:

> Most likely this machine had a valid license.

But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 12:59:38 AM UTC-7, Andy Burns wrote:
> gah4 wrote:
> > Most likely this machine had a valid license.

> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.

So a different question.

A machine can run a legally licensed copy, but just not to me?

Does everyone who uses a machine need to have a license,
or only one? Do you have to have it in hand while using it?

And how exactly do you transfer a license for VAX/VMS?

In any case, I would feel less guilty about using a licensed
machine than an unlicensed one.

On 7/27/2022 5:46 AM, gah4 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 12:59:38 AM UTC-7, Andy Burns wrote:
>> gah4 wrote:
>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>
>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
>
> So a different question.
>
> A machine can run a legally licensed copy, but just not to me?

Anybody that has a valid VMS license can run VMS.

That a previous owner of some hardware had a valid VMS license
does not give the current owner of the hardware a valid license.

It requires the license to have been transferred every time
the hardware changed owner.

> Does everyone who uses a machine need to have a license,
> or only one?

That depends on the license.

But I believe VMS licenses are for 1 machine. I have never
heard about a VMS site license.

> Do you have to have it in hand while using it?

You just need to have it.

Practically it is nice to be able to find the documentation
in case of a license audit.

> And how exactly do you transfer a license for VAX/VMS?

The seller need to provide papers and HPE needs to
approve the transfer (which they will require a fee for).

That is probably a difficult path.

It has been written a couple of times that HPE leasing
has VMS licenses from returned hardware and that they
are transferring the licenses - which sort of makes sense
as the alternative for them is to throw the licenses
in the trash bin.

> In any case, I would feel less guilty about using a licensed
> machine than an unlicensed one.

You may feel better because someone paid a fortune for a VMS
license like 30 years ago.

But legally what matters is whether you have a license.

Arne

On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> gah4 wrote:
>
>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>
> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.

Ok, who is doing the transfers?

Maybe this is an opportunity. I'll do the transfers. Send me the information
on the back of a $100 bill, and I'll issue the transfer info. Contact info below.

DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no more. So,
is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more, then the requirement
for the transfer is no more.

--
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, July 27, 2022 at 10:19:28 AM UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> > gah4 wrote:
> >
> >> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
> >
> > But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
> Ok, who is doing the transfers?
>
> Maybe this is an opportunity. I'll do the transfers. Send me the information
> on the back of a $100 bill, and I'll issue the transfer info. Contact info below.
>
> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no more. So,
> is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more, then the requirement
> for the transfer is no more.
> --
> 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
HP financial is still providing transfers. I don't know the cost however. Both transfers and acquisition of "new" licenses is available.

Dan

On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> gah4 wrote:
>>
>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>>
>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
>
> Ok, who is doing the transfers?

> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300.  But DEC is no
> more.  So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
> then the requirement for the transfer is no more.

Compaq bought DEC and all IP.

HP bought Compaq and all IP.

When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).

Arne

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> > On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> >> gah4 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
> >>
> >> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
> >
> > Ok, who is doing the transfers?
> > DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no
> > more. So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
> > then the requirement for the transfer is no more.
> Compaq bought DEC and all IP.
>
> HP bought Compaq and all IP.
>
> When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).
>
> Arne
Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses. It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.

On 7/27/2022 10:52 AM, abrsvc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> gah4 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>>>>
>>>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
>>>
>>> Ok, who is doing the transfers?
>>> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no
>>> more. So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
>>> then the requirement for the transfer is no more.
>> Compaq bought DEC and all IP.
>>
>> HP bought Compaq and all IP.
>>
>> When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).
>
> Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses.
> It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.
I don't think it is strange.

A long time ago someone leased a system meaning that DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
financials bougth the system and the VMS license, then the customer
paid every month/quarter/year - after N years the lease expires and
both the hardware and the license return to DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
financials. So they end up with a pile of old hardware and a pile of VMS
licenses. So they figured out that they could sell those licenses. And
they had the inside knowledge and power to grab the right to approve
transfers.

Arne

On 2022-07-27, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>
> But I believe VMS licenses are for 1 machine. I have never
> heard about a VMS site license.
>

How did the old VMS campus-wide education licences work when they were
offered many years ago ?

Did a site admin have to get PAKs for each VMS machine on the campus
or did they get given the same set of PAKs once and told they could
use the same licences on each VMS machine ?

Simon.

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

On 7/27/22 13:33, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-27, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>
>> But I believe VMS licenses are for 1 machine. I have never
>> heard about a VMS site license.
>>
>
> How did the old VMS campus-wide education licences work when they were
> offered many years ago ?

I was going to mention CSRG but I was never the administrator so I
really don't know how it worked. Only that I got to use it.

>
> Did a site admin have to get PAKs for each VMS machine on the campus
> or did they get given the same set of PAKs once and told they could
> use the same licences on each VMS machine ?

I am pretty sure They gave me a set of PAKs and I used them on all
the machines I had.

bill

On 7/27/2022 1:33 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-27, Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> But I believe VMS licenses are for 1 machine. I have never
>> heard about a VMS site license.
>
> How did the old VMS campus-wide education licences work when they were
> offered many years ago ?
>
> Did a site admin have to get PAKs for each VMS machine on the campus
> or did they get given the same set of PAKs once and told they could
> use the same licences on each VMS machine ?

Long time but when was involved with university VMS systems back in
late 80's early 90's then I believe we got specific PAK's for each
system.

Disclaimers:
- other places may have had different rules
- my memory may be weak

Arne

On 7/27/2022 10:52 AM, abrsvc wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> gah4 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>>>>
>>>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
>>>
>>> Ok, who is doing the transfers?
>>> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no
>>> more. So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
>>> then the requirement for the transfer is no more.
>> Compaq bought DEC and all IP.
>>
>> HP bought Compaq and all IP.
>>
>> When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).
>>
>> Arne
> Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses. It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.
>

HP financial is selling things that come in from lease. Nothing as far as I
know. My question is, are they just selling assets (licenses), or do they have
permission to actually transfer licenses. I'm wondering whether they are doing
what Simon and Arne are accusing others of doing? I'm betting they are
"software pirates".

--
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 7/27/2022 11:20 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 10:52 AM, abrsvc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>>> gah4 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
>>>>>
>>>>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, who is doing the transfers?
>>>> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no
>>>> more. So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
>>>> then the requirement for the transfer is no more.
>>> Compaq bought DEC and all IP.
>>>
>>> HP bought Compaq and all IP.
>>>
>>> When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).
>>
>> Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses.
>> It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.
> I don't think it is strange.
>
> A long time ago someone leased a system meaning that DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
> financials bougth the system and the VMS license, then the customer
> paid every month/quarter/year - after N years the lease expires and
> both the hardware and the license return to DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
> financials. So they end up with a pile of old hardware and a pile of VMS
> licenses. So they figured out that they could sell those licenses. And
> they had the inside knowledge and power to grab the right to approve
> transfers.

But, do they actually have that right?

If they are not part of whatever organization might have the rights to the IP,
then perhaps not, and they are doing just what Simon is deploring.

--
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, July 27, 2022 at 2:48:53 PM UTC-4, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 11:20 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> > On 7/27/2022 10:52 AM, abrsvc wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 10:43:38 AM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> >>> On 7/27/2022 10:19 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >>>> On 7/27/2022 3:59 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> >>>>> gah4 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Most likely this machine had a valid license.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But only transferable to a new owner on payment of a fee.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, who is doing the transfers?
> >>>> DC would do the transfer for, I seem to recall, $300. But DEC is no
> >>>> more. So, is DEC's transfer still required, or, since DEC is no more,
> >>>> then the requirement for the transfer is no more.
> >>> Compaq bought DEC and all IP.
> >>>
> >>> HP bought Compaq and all IP.
> >>>
> >>> When HP split then HPE and HP Inc split the IP (I assume this went to HPE).
> >>
> >> Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses.
> >> It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.
> > I don't think it is strange.
> >
> > A long time ago someone leased a system meaning that DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
> > financials bougth the system and the VMS license, then the customer
> > paid every month/quarter/year - after N years the lease expires and
> > both the hardware and the license return to DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
> > financials. So they end up with a pile of old hardware and a pile of VMS
> > licenses. So they figured out that they could sell those licenses. And
> > they had the inside knowledge and power to grab the right to approve
> > transfers.
> But, do they actually have that right?
>
> If they are not part of whatever organization might have the rights to the IP,
> then perhaps not, and they are doing just what Simon is deploring.
> --
> 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
Yes they do have the right to transfer licenses. We do this all the time. There are also licenses available for purchase from leased equipment.

Dan

On 7/27/2022 2:48 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/27/2022 11:20 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 7/27/2022 10:52 AM, abrsvc wrote:
>>> Strange as it sounds, it is HP Financial that handles the licenses.
>>> It may be part of HPE technically, but is known as HP Financial.
>> I don't think it is strange.
>>
>> A long time ago someone leased a system meaning that DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
>> financials bougth the system and the VMS license, then the customer
>> paid every month/quarter/year - after N years the lease expires and
>> both the hardware and the license return to DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE
>> financials. So they end up with a pile of old hardware and a pile of VMS
>> licenses. So they figured out that they could sell those licenses. And
>> they had the inside knowledge and power to grab the right to approve
>> transfers.
>
> But, do they actually have that right?
>
> If they are not part of whatever organization might have the rights to
> the IP, then perhaps not, and they are doing just what Simon is deploring.

HPE has the right. And if they are part of HPE then it is just a matter
of who internally got authorization which is a lot easier than when
dealing with multiple companies. Someone in that leasing team probably
asked the CEO if they would be allowed to make some money on the old
stuff by being granted a bunch of permissions. And they got the go
ahead and it works.

Arne

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:29:47 AM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

(snip, I wrote)

> > A machine can run a legally licensed copy, but just not to me?

> Anybody that has a valid VMS license can run VMS.

> That a previous owner of some hardware had a valid VMS license
> does not give the current owner of the hardware a valid license.
> It requires the license to have been transferred every time
> the hardware changed owner.

OK, so say someone lets me use a machine but doesn't actually
transfer ownership. More specifically, say that I don't pay anything,
but am allowed to use it. In that case, no transfer fee should
be needed. But exactly how do I know which one it is?

On 7/27/2022 6:09 PM, gah4 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:29:47 AM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> A machine can run a legally licensed copy, but just not to me?
>
>> Anybody that has a valid VMS license can run VMS.
>
>> That a previous owner of some hardware had a valid VMS license
>> does not give the current owner of the hardware a valid license.
>
>> It requires the license to have been transferred every time
>> the hardware changed owner.
>
> OK, so say someone lets me use a machine but doesn't actually
> transfer ownership. More specifically, say that I don't pay anything,
> but am allowed to use it. In that case, no transfer fee should
> be needed. But exactly how do I know which one it is?

If someone like your employer bought a system with a valid license
and when it was no longer needed let you use it for personal usage
but legally retained ownership, then I think it is perfectly fine
from a license law perspective. The legal owner has a valid license
and it is none of DEC/CPQ/HP/HPE's business how the company
use it.

Arne

On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 5:06:46 PM UTC-7, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

(snip)
> If someone like your employer bought a system with a valid license
> and when it was no longer needed let you use it for personal usage
> but legally retained ownership, then I think it is perfectly fine
> from a license law perspective.

This leaves another thing that I didn't say above.

Often things like this are owned by corporations, not people.
As far as I know, if the corporation is purchased whole, they still
belong to the same corporation. That is, there is no need to transfer
a license when a corporation changes ownership. (Which, technically,
happens when stock is bought and sold.)

It would seem, then, that one could start a corporation and have it buy
the and license the computer. One could then sell the corporation
instead of the computer. One does have to plan ahead, though.

In actuality, the time the question comes up is when one wants
upgrades, to file bug reports, or receive bug fixes. No company
is going to knock on doors and ask to see someone's license
in their home.

In article <tbm1k8$173ck$2@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> It would be better if people, especially people who are generally
> well regarded, do not start pointing other people to illegal material.
>
> As well as being illegal in its own right, it also damages potential
> future hobbyist licences.

Indeed.