State of the OpenVMS hobbyist program?

[Alexander Schreiber]

Hi,

After many years, I've started playing with OpenVMS again. The current
toy of choice is a MicroVAX3900 in SIMH with 256MB of RAM running OpenVMS
7.2 for VAX. Of course if complains about not having an active license.

Since this is strictly for non-commercial, hobbyist "learning and playing
around", I figured the Hobbyist license should be fine. I've found a HP
website for requesting the Hobbyist license, dug up my old DECUS member
number & submitted all the requested details. Got a mail that said
"Your message is important to us. It has been forwarded to the HP
OpenVMS Systems response team." promising follow-up, but silence
so far after 4 days.

Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
is, if it is still alive?

Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-16, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
> is, if it is still alive?
>

It should be.

The Hobbyist program is managed by VMS Engineering in India so
responses to hobbyist requests are done on India business time.

Did you fill in the field which asks what you are using the
hobbyist program for ?

It's not marked as mandatory, but HPE have refused to process
licence renewal requests of mine in the past until I filled in
that field.

BTW, to any VSI people reading this, do you know what the current
state of the VSI hobbyist plans are ?

Thanks,

Simon.

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

[Alexander Schreiber]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2019-11-16, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
>> is, if it is still alive?
>>
>
> It should be.

Good to know, thanks.

> The Hobbyist program is managed by VMS Engineering in India so
> responses to hobbyist requests are done on India business time.
>
> Did you fill in the field which asks what you are using the
> hobbyist program for ?

Yep, IIRC "Hobbyist use and learning about VMS" or something like that.

> It's not marked as mandatory, but HPE have refused to process
> licence renewal requests of mine in the past until I filled in
> that field.
>
> BTW, to any VSI people reading this, do you know what the current
> state of the VSI hobbyist plans are ?

[John H. Reinhardt]

On 11/16/2019 7:00 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> On 2019-11-16, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
>>> is, if it is still alive?
>>>
>>
>> It should be.
>
> Good to know, thanks.
>
>> The Hobbyist program is managed by VMS Engineering in India so
>> responses to hobbyist requests are done on India business time.
>>

Not to mention that it's pretty much one engineer named Hari and sometimes he misses an email. It doesn't hurt to re-apply again after a few days. Best is to time it during the week and daytime in India if you can. Another possibility is an email to openvmscu...@hpe.com asking about your application. That could also jog the process.

>> Did you fill in the field which asks what you are using the
>> hobbyist program for ?
>
> Yep, IIRC "Hobbyist use and learning about VMS" or something like that.
>
>> It's not marked as mandatory, but HPE have refused to process
>> licence renewal requests of mine in the past until I filled in
>> that field.
>>
>> BTW, to any VSI people reading this, do you know what the current
>> state of the VSI hobbyist plans are ?
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>


--

John H. Reinhardt

[IanD]

Perhaps advance on from the Vax to an alpha?

https://training.vmssoftware.com/hobbyist/

It's more limited compared to the HP hobbyist program that used to include clustering as well but it's at least something from VSI after a long wait

Not sure that I'd call it a hobbyist licence because hobbyist to me means more than just tyre kicking but as I said, it's a start from VSI

It contains an alpha emulator as well

[David Wade]

On 16/11/2019 21:02, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After many years, I've started playing with OpenVMS again. The current
> toy of choice is a MicroVAX3900 in SIMH with 256MB of RAM running OpenVMS
> 7.2 for VAX. Of course if complains about not having an active license.
>
> Since this is strictly for non-commercial, hobbyist "learning and playing
> around", I figured the Hobbyist license should be fine. I've found a HP
> website for requesting the Hobbyist license, dug up my old DECUS member
> number & submitted all the requested details. Got a mail that said
> "Your message is important to us. It has been forwarded to the HP
> OpenVMS Systems response team." promising follow-up, but silence
> so far after 4 days.
>
> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
> is, if it is still alive?
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>

It says it checks the decus number. Is it still for a valid open chapter?

Dave

[Alexander Schreiber]

David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
> On 16/11/2019 21:02, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After many years, I've started playing with OpenVMS again. The current
>> toy of choice is a MicroVAX3900 in SIMH with 256MB of RAM running OpenVMS
>> 7.2 for VAX. Of course if complains about not having an active license.
>>
>> Since this is strictly for non-commercial, hobbyist "learning and playing
>> around", I figured the Hobbyist license should be fine. I've found a HP
>> website for requesting the Hobbyist license, dug up my old DECUS member
>> number & submitted all the requested details. Got a mail that said
>> "Your message is important to us. It has been forwarded to the HP
>> OpenVMS Systems response team." promising follow-up, but silence
>> so far after 4 days.
>>
>> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
>> is, if it is still alive?
>>

> It says it checks the decus number. Is it still for a valid open chapter?

Well, I registered for DECUS as a student 20 years ago when I got my
hands on a VAXstation 3100/M38, with DECUS Germany. Which got absorbed
into Connect Germany and I provided that as my chapter, so ... maybe?

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

I still use my Swedish DECUS member number from the 80's. Don't know if
that is relevant here. But then, last time I requested a hobbyist licence
package was a few years ago.

[Michael Kraemer @ home]

Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>
> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
> is, if it is still alive?

I received fresh licenses six weeks ago.
Current address is
https://www.hpe.com/h41268/live/index_e.aspx?qid=24548
DECUS number works.
Don't forget to fill "How do you use the Hobbyist Program?"
with some credible intention.

[Alexander Schreiber]

IanD <iloveo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps advance on from the Vax to an alpha?
>
> https://training.vmssoftware.com/hobbyist/

Unfortunately, that kit requires Windows. Buying a Windows license
(Microsoft still wants money for those, right?) and setting up a properly
isolated VM just for this is too much trouble for me. I haven't run
Windows in a long time and have no intention to change that any time soon.

Besides, I'm more comfortable on ${UNIX} anyway.

But thanks for the pointer.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-17, IanD <iloveo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps advance on from the Vax to an alpha?
>
> https://training.vmssoftware.com/hobbyist/
>
> It's more limited compared to the HP hobbyist program that used to include clustering as well but it's at least something from VSI after a long wait
>

This is more of a student turnkey system than a hobbyist kit.

The real question is what happens when the licence in the kit expires.

Can you load a new licence into your existing version of the kit
(hence preserving your custom configuration) or are you expected to
customise a new system disk from scratch whenever the VSI licences expire ?

I asked that question here but never got an answer from VSI other than
it was aimed as a student learning kit and not as a traditional
experienced VMS hobbyist environment.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2019-11-18 kl. 00:49, skrev Simon Clubley:

> Can you load a new licence into your existing version of the kit

> (hence preserving your custom configuration)...

Strictly technically, yes.

[Hans Bachner]

Simon Clubley schrieb am 18.11.2019 um 00:49:
> [snip]

>
> This is more of a student turnkey system than a hobbyist kit.
>
> The real question is what happens when the licence in the kit expires.

Well, the same thing as if a "normal" PAK expires. No more networking,
access only through OPA0.

> Can you load a new licence into your existing version of the kit
> (hence preserving your custom configuration) or are you expected to
> customise a new system disk from scratch whenever the VSI licences expire ?

I don't know whether VSI will provide the PAKs without the whole student
kit. If not, you can always configure the new virtual disk as a second
disk to your expiring/expired student kit, extract the PAKs from the new
license database and register them on your "old" system.

It's a bit cumbersome, but probably less work than re-apply your
customizations.

On the other hand, if you don't have access to the VSI software kits,
using the new student kit is the only way to keep up to date with
software versions and patches...

> I asked that question here but never got an answer from VSI other than
> it was aimed as a student learning kit and not as a traditional
> experienced VMS hobbyist environment.

I also hope this will change in the future. But currently they obviously
have more important stuff to do, like finalizing the V9.0 EAK and
dealing with the new support situation.

Hans.

[kamme...@gmail.com]

понедельник, 18 ноября 2019 г., 4:49:47 UTC+5 пользователь Simon Clubley написал:

> On 2019-11-17, IanD <iloveo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps advance on from the Vax to an alpha?
> >
> > https://training.vmssoftware.com/hobbyist/
> >
> > It's more limited compared to the HP hobbyist program that used to include clustering as well but it's at least something from VSI after a long wait
> >
>

> Can you load a new licence into your existing version of the kit
> (hence preserving your custom configuration) or are you expected to
> customise a new system disk from scratch whenever the VSI licences expire ?
>
> I asked that question here but never got an answer from VSI other than
> it was aimed as a student learning kit and not as a traditional
> experienced VMS hobbyist environment.
>
> Simon.
>
> --
> Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

Simon,

The only way one can use the licenses provided by the student kit is to use them with the emulator. So if you extract or copy them either way, you are still only allowed to install and continue using them with FreeAXP in non-commercial purposes. In other words, you can extract the paks if you want to, but it is only officially allowed in case you want to activate your already fully installed and configured training environment so that you don't need to configure it once again.

As for the hobbyist program, indeed, plans for one are currently being discussed by VSI but this student kit will be available no matter what decision is ultimately taken.

Yours respectfully,

Maxim Megalinskiy

VSI Training Team

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-18, kamme...@gmail.com <kamme...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ???????????, 18 ?????? 2019 ?., 4:49:47 UTC+5 ???????????? Simon Clubley ???????:

>
> As for the hobbyist program, indeed, plans for one are currently being discussed by VSI but this student kit will be available no matter what decision is ultimately taken.
>

Does anyone at VSI know if there _will_ be a VSI hobbyist program in
some form or are the discussions at VSI about whether there _should_
even be a VSI hobbyist program ?

I don't see any prospect of HPE issuing a final set of non-terminating
hobbyist licences. After all, why should HPE go to the legal effort
of clearing that and implementing it when they are leaving the VMS
business ? We don't even know if it's even legally possible for HPE
to issue those types of hobbyist licences in the first place.

As such, given how long VSI hobbyist licences have been under discussion
without anything happening, there's a real risk here that VSI management
decide not to offer a hobbyist program for various reasons and therefore
the VMS hobbyist world may very well come to a sudden end in about a year.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qquoub$95h$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> Does anyone at VSI know if there _will_ be a VSI hobbyist program in
> some form or are the discussions at VSI about whether there _should_
> even be a VSI hobbyist program ?

For what it's worth, I asked about a hobbyist programme at the first VSI
conference call, where the port was announced; the reply was that there
would be.

> I don't see any prospect of HPE issuing a final set of non-terminating
> hobbyist licences. After all, why should HPE go to the legal effort
> of clearing that and implementing it when they are leaving the VMS
> business ? We don't even know if it's even legally possible for HPE
> to issue those types of hobbyist licences in the first place.

At least at one time, it was possible to transfer a regular license for
a fee. Since those have no termination date, this would be an option.

> As such, given how long VSI hobbyist licences have been under discussion
> without anything happening, there's a real risk here that VSI management
> decide not to offer a hobbyist program for various reasons and therefore
> the VMS hobbyist world may very well come to a sudden end in about a year.

That would be sad. On the other hand, perhaps there will be some sort
of license reasonably priced for a hobbyist. I'm sure that most
hobbyists would gladly pay, say, an appreciable fraction of what they
otherwise pay for their hobby (mainly electricity) for a license,
especially if it included access to patches.

[Alexander Schreiber]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2019-11-17, IanD <iloveo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps advance on from the Vax to an alpha?
>>
>> https://training.vmssoftware.com/hobbyist/
>>
>> It's more limited compared to the HP hobbyist program that used to include clustering as well but it's at least something from VSI after a long wait
>>
>
> This is more of a student turnkey system than a hobbyist kit.
>
> The real question is what happens when the licence in the kit expires.
>
> Can you load a new licence into your existing version of the kit
> (hence preserving your custom configuration) or are you expected to
> customise a new system disk from scratch whenever the VSI licences expire ?

What I understand from skimming their description is that once the license
expires, that kit is ... sorta dead. You are supposed to backup your files,
download a new licensed kit and reload your files from that backup.

> I asked that question here but never got an answer from VSI other than
> it was aimed as a student learning kit and not as a traditional
> experienced VMS hobbyist environment.

Yes, that's what I understood as well, it is intended as a student kit
for learning VMS that you discard once you're done with the lessons.

So, not exactly the kind of thing a hobbyist user would be looking for.

[Alexander Schreiber]

John H. Reinhardt <johnhre...@thereinhardts.org> wrote:
> On 11/16/2019 7:00 PM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
>> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>> On 2019-11-16, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does anybody know what the current state of the OpenVMS hobbyist program
>>>> is, if it is still alive?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It should be.
>>
>> Good to know, thanks.
>>
>>> The Hobbyist program is managed by VMS Engineering in India so
>>> responses to hobbyist requests are done on India business time.
>>>
>
> Not to mention that it's pretty much one engineer named Hari and
> sometimes he misses an email. It doesn't hurt to re-apply again
> after a few days. Best is to time it during the week and daytime
> in India if you can. Another possibility is an email to
> openvmscu...@hpe.com asking about your application. That
> could also jog the process.

To close to loop on that: Hari got back to me and mailed me the
license kit with the hobbyist PAKs for OpenVMS Alpha/VAX.

So, be patient, it might take a few days, but you'll get your
hobbyist license, which has a 13 month lifetime. Adding a note
to my calender to update the license a year from now ;-)

Once I've loaded the PAKs I can go explore OpenVMS again. Now
I just have to figure out if I can get networking to work in
SIMH on Android, then I'll have a pocket VAX (SIMH on Planet
Computer Gemini) to go.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-19, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>
> So, be patient, it might take a few days, but you'll get your
> hobbyist license, which has a 13 month lifetime. Adding a note
> to my calender to update the license a year from now ;-)
>

Be aware that HPE support for VMS ends at the end of 2020 and
therefore it is expected that the HPE hobbyist program will end
at the same time, if not before. This is why finding out about
VSI's plans for a hobbyist program is becoming more important
than it was a couple of years ago.

[Hans Bachner]

Simon Clubley schrieb am 19.11.2019 um 14:15:
> On 2019-11-19, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>> So, be patient, it might take a few days, but you'll get your
>> hobbyist license, which has a 13 month lifetime. Adding a note
>> to my calender to update the license a year from now ;-)
>>
>
> Be aware that HPE support for VMS ends at the end of 2020 and
> therefore it is expected that the HPE hobbyist program will end
> at the same time, if not before. This is why finding out about
> VSI's plans for a hobbyist program is becoming more important
> than it was a couple of years ago.

While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.

Hans.

[Alexander Schreiber]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
> On 2019-11-19, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>
>> So, be patient, it might take a few days, but you'll get your
>> hobbyist license, which has a 13 month lifetime. Adding a note
>> to my calender to update the license a year from now ;-)
>>
>
> Be aware that HPE support for VMS ends at the end of 2020 and
> therefore it is expected that the HPE hobbyist program will end
> at the same time, if not before.

*eek*

I wasn't aware of that (but then I don't wrangle VMS for a living).
The hobbyist licenses I got issued have "TERMINATION_DATE=19-DEC-2020".

> This is why finding out about
> VSI's plans for a hobbyist program is becoming more important
> than it was a couple of years ago.

Good point, what I've seen for far isn't getting my hopes up, though.

[Dave Froble]

One method might be for VSI to issue a new release / version for
VMS/VAX. Don't know if they have the rights to do so. I do know that
there is no way in hell they are going to waste time on such an effort,
unless, some customers come up with some rather substantial money, and
such customers most likely already have perpetual licenses, and have no
need for new licenses.

Same chance as the proverbial snowball in hell.

Another method would be for HPe to issue a free perpetual license, free
to all. Note, this would not be open sourcing the OS. Just a free
license for everyone. I see no downside to this, however, there just
might be some issues, don't know.

Another potential possibility would for some perpetual license(s) to
somehow end up on the internet. Yes Bill, this smacks of illegality.
Should such happen, I don't know who might attempt legal action. Might
be hard to fine culprits. Not advocating such, just mentioning things
that could happen. Keep in mind that there have been a lot of VAXs, and
most had a VMS license. Wonder where all those papers are?

Another possibility would be for some of the methods of circumventing
the LMF might find their way onto the internet. Same caviets as
previous paragraph.

Have to wonder if the capability for issuing licenses DEC provided to
ISVs and such would allow generating a license for VMS? Don't know much
about this.

Best option for those wanting VAX licenses is HPe just issuing a
universal free license which would work on any VAX model. Just don't
see what benefit HPe would see in doing so.


--
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

[Robert A. Brooks]

On 11/19/2019 9:52 AM, Hans Bachner wrote:

> And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to) issue licenses for
> DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.

The probability is exactly zero.

--
-- Rob

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/19/2019 10:57 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>> On 2019-11-19, Alexander Schreiber <a...@usenet.thangorodrim.de> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, be patient, it might take a few days, but you'll get your
>>> hobbyist license, which has a 13 month lifetime. Adding a note
>>> to my calender to update the license a year from now ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Be aware that HPE support for VMS ends at the end of 2020 and
>> therefore it is expected that the HPE hobbyist program will end
>> at the same time, if not before.
>
> *eek*
>
> I wasn't aware of that (but then I don't wrangle VMS for a living).
> The hobbyist licenses I got issued have "TERMINATION_DATE=19-DEC-2020".

Which is the +13 months.

Arne

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr226r$2nt$1...@dont-email.me>, "Robert A. Brooks"

What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
When can we expect it to be set up?

At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.

If HPE have just one guy doing the hobbyist licenses, it can't be that
much work for VSI to set up. Maybe someone here from the newsgroup
would even volunteer to do it for free.

While I think that there should be a hobbyist license, it would be
interesting to know if any other licenses will be affordable for typical
hobbyists and/or if access to patches will be provided and if so for
which type of licenses.

[Tim Sneddon]

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
> In article <qr226r$2nt$1...@dont-email.me>, "Robert A. Brooks"
> <FIRST...@vmssoftware.com> writes:
>
>> On 11/19/2019 9:52 AM, Hans Bachner wrote:
>>
>> > And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to) issue licenses for
>> > DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>>
>> The probability is exactly zero.
>
> What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
> VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
> When can we expect it to be set up?
>
> At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
> supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
> there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
> both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.
>
> If HPE have just one guy doing the hobbyist licenses, it can't be that
> much work for VSI to set up. Maybe someone here from the newsgroup
> would even volunteer to do it for free.

Just a bit presumptuous?

I'm guessing the problem with the hobbyist license is not so much to
do with someone answering an email and more likely to do with the
legalities.

You might recall that Pathworks never appeared on the hobbyist
license list, despite the fact I think it would have been popular.
Years later it was explained that Pathworks was off the list because
the license agreement with Microsoft required DEC/Compaq to collect a
fee for each license that went to M$. Not a sensible move to offer
that for free, you instantly loose money. Bit like making a sleeve
for a 12" single that cost 10p more than the sale price of the
record ;-)

VSI probably need to discuss with HPE how to make it all work and
waive royalties or something. Either way, I think people need to
be a little more patient. There are more important things on the
agenda and the hobbyist program probably gets pushed back a bit.

Regards, Tim.

[Hans Bachner]

Sure. He was aware of the license termination date.

"I wasn't aware of that" probably was related to "Be aware that HPE
support for VMS ends at the end of 2020".

Hans.

[Michael Kraemer @ home]

Dave Froble wrote:

> Another potential possibility would for some perpetual license(s) to
> somehow end up on the internet.

Hello VLF, hello PAKGEN.

[Henry Crun]

I have vague memories of PAKGEN to supply temporary test licenses.
What's VLF?

--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before
and: http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/T/top-post.html
Missile address: N31.7624/E34.9691

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-19, Hans Bachner <ha...@bachner.priv.at> wrote:
>
> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>

Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
program VSI may eventually come up with.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-20, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>
> What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
> VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
> When can we expect it to be set up?
>
> At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
> supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
> there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
> both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.
>

You are coming across as having a bit of an entitlement complex Phillip.

You can't assume that whatever hobbyist licence VSI may come up with will
allow full access to the range of VMS capbilities. Didn't someone say that
the current VSI student kit doesn't have clustering support ?

You also can't even assume that VSI will finally decide to create a VSI
hobbyist licence. There is absolutely no obligation on them to do so.

I personally think VSI not creating a hobbyist program will be very
short term thinking on the part of VSI which will damage them, but that's
for VSI to decide. I just wish VSI would make up their minds quickly
so we know whether it's worthwhile to continue maintaining a VMS hobbyist
setup at home.

VSI will also need to be convinced that any hobbyist program will be used
within the constraints that VSI state, so anyone suggesting ideas to
work around the end of the existing hobbyist licences from HPE are just
damaging the prospect of any future hobbyist program from VSI.

To rephrase that: you are _not_ entitled to a free or low cost hobbyist
licence and if such licences are issued, any organisation issuing them
needs to be convinced they are going to be used within the constraints
the organisation have laid out. I think it's in the best interests of
VSI for them to maintain an active hobbyist program, but that's for VSI
to decide.

> If HPE have just one guy doing the hobbyist licenses, it can't be that
> much work for VSI to set up. Maybe someone here from the newsgroup
> would even volunteer to do it for free.
>

And why would VSI go for the last bit ? Generating licences will require
access to certain resources that could be misused so it's something VSI
will need to keep tight control of, if only from the legal liability
point of view.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/20/19 8:07 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-19, Hans Bachner <ha...@bachner.priv.at> wrote:
>>
>> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
>> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
>> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
>> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
>> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
>> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>>
>
> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
> program VSI may eventually come up with.
>
> Simon.
>

Welcome to the same world as PDP-11 "Hobbyists". :-)

bill

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 8:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-20, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>>
>> What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
>> VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
>> When can we expect it to be set up?
>>
>> At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
>> supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
>> there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
>> both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.
>>
>
> You are coming across as having a bit of an entitlement complex Phillip.

Ya know Simon, that is exactly the same thought that occurred to me when
I read that.

> You can't assume that whatever hobbyist licence VSI may come up with will
> allow full access to the range of VMS capbilities. Didn't someone say that
> the current VSI student kit doesn't have clustering support ?
>
> You also can't even assume that VSI will finally decide to create a VSI
> hobbyist licence. There is absolutely no obligation on them to do so.

No obligation, but, as I've written in the past, the more eyes on VMS,
the better for VSI.

> I personally think VSI not creating a hobbyist program will be very
> short term thinking on the part of VSI which will damage them, but that's
> for VSI to decide. I just wish VSI would make up their minds quickly
> so we know whether it's worthwhile to continue maintaining a VMS hobbyist
> setup at home.
>
> VSI will also need to be convinced that any hobbyist program will be used
> within the constraints that VSI state, so anyone suggesting ideas to
> work around the end of the existing hobbyist licences from HPE are just
> damaging the prospect of any future hobbyist program from VSI.

I wasn't suggesting, I was observing reality.

> To rephrase that: you are _not_ entitled to a free or low cost hobbyist
> licence and if such licences are issued, any organisation issuing them
> needs to be convinced they are going to be used within the constraints
> the organisation have laid out. I think it's in the best interests of
> VSI for them to maintain an active hobbyist program, but that's for VSI
> to decide.
>
>> If HPE have just one guy doing the hobbyist licenses, it can't be that
>> much work for VSI to set up. Maybe someone here from the newsgroup
>> would even volunteer to do it for free.
>>
>
> And why would VSI go for the last bit ? Generating licences will require
> access to certain resources that could be misused so it's something VSI
> will need to keep tight control of, if only from the legal liability
> point of view.

You've mentioned "legality" in the past. I'm not sure that is an issue.
I'm also not sure that it isn't.

Without publishing the agreement with HP, we cannot know what is in it.
However, VSI has said that they have full rights to anything they
produce, and, that they have the right to sell, issue, whatever, VMS
releases produced by VSI.

Now, one might then get into the issue of royalties to third partys.
I'd observe that if anyone knew just who should get any such royalties,
then the knowledge about what restrictions on disseminating parts or all
of VMS would exist, and, there has been speculation that such knowledge
might not exist.

Even the fact that HP has a hobbyist program indicates that usage of VMS
can be done without any cost.

It is all so (un)clear ....

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 8:07 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-19, Hans Bachner <ha...@bachner.priv.at> wrote:
>>
>> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
>> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
>> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
>> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
>> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
>> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>>
>
> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
> program VSI may eventually come up with.

Suspect?

Say, not a chance.

VSI does not have a VAX release, and cannot issue anything for
DEC/Compaq/HP releases.

VSI has no reason to do any such thing.

VAX/VMS will run, in a very limited way, without any license. There is
always access from the console.

[Dave Froble]

Maybe, but, I don't think it's the same world.

I'm not aware of any LMF type of thing on PDP-11 OSs. Does such exist?

There is plenty of VAX/VMS media available. Not sure it's the same with
PDP-11 OSs.

Probably the biggest problem for PDP-11 stuff is media. At least media
for which there still exists devices which can access such media.
Haven't seen a 9-track tape drive for quite a long time.

Another issue would be documentation. Back in the day it was all on paper.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/20/19 11:06 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 9:10 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 11/20/19 8:07 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2019-11-19, Hans Bachner <ha...@bachner.priv.at> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
>>>> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a
>>>> few
>>>> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
>>>> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
>>>> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
>>>> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX
>>> hobbyist
>>> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever
>>> hobbyist
>>> program VSI may eventually come up with.
>>>
>>> Simon.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Welcome to the same world as PDP-11 "Hobbyists".  :-)
>
> Maybe, but, I don't think it's the same world.
>
> I'm not aware of any LMF type of thing on PDP-11 OSs.  Does such exist?

Nope, just human morals.

>
> There is plenty of VAX/VMS media available.  Not sure it's the same with
> PDP-11 OSs.

Internet is replete with them.

>
> Probably the biggest problem for PDP-11 stuff is media.  At least media
> for which there still exists devices which can access such media.
> Haven't seen a 9-track tape drive for quite a long time.

I still have one. Mine is SCSI so I can move it around. But others
have some of the originals. I used to. And they were all still
working when IO gave them away. I also still have TK-50's and, yes,
they still work. But there are a number of other ways to get the
OSes onto a real PDP-11. But, as I have stated in the past, Unix is
the only one that can be used legally (and morally if anyone still
cares about such an antiquated concept!) That is the world the VAX
is joining.

>
> Another issue would be documentation.  Back in the day it was all on paper.

Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.

bill

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 9:10 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> Welcome to the same world as PDP-11 "Hobbyists". :-)
>
> Maybe, but, I don't think it's the same world.
>
> I'm not aware of any LMF type of thing on PDP-11 OSs. Does such exist?
>
> There is plenty of VAX/VMS media available. Not sure it's the same with
> PDP-11 OSs.
>
> Probably the biggest problem for PDP-11 stuff is media. At least media
> for which there still exists devices which can access such media.
> Haven't seen a 9-track tape drive for quite a long time.
>
> Another issue would be documentation. Back in the day it was all on paper.
>

As Bill says, there are various media kits and documentation sets available
(and the media kits are compatible with SimH).

The main issue is whether you are still legally allowed to run the PDP-11
operating systems under SimH. Mentec created a hobbyist licence which
allowed people to run older versions of the various PDP-11 operating
systems for hobbyist purposes.

However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
meaning of the wording used).

However, DEC no longer own SimH and so the argument made by some people
is that the Mentec hobbyist licence is now invalid because there is no
longer any DEC owned emulator.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

> On 11/20/2019 8:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> And why would VSI go for the last bit ? Generating licences will require
>> access to certain resources that could be misused so it's something VSI
>> will need to keep tight control of, if only from the legal liability
>> point of view.
>
> You've mentioned "legality" in the past. I'm not sure that is an issue.
> I'm also not sure that it isn't.
>
> Without publishing the agreement with HP, we cannot know what is in it.
> However, VSI has said that they have full rights to anything they
> produce, and, that they have the right to sell, issue, whatever, VMS
> releases produced by VSI.
>

The HPE agreement is not the issue here. VSI will probably need to show
that any hobbyist licences are issued in a controlled and appropriate
manner. Giving up control of that process to someone not employed by VSI
will make that a _lot_ harder to demonstrate.

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 1:57 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2019 8:34 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> And why would VSI go for the last bit ? Generating licences will require
>>> access to certain resources that could be misused so it's something VSI
>>> will need to keep tight control of, if only from the legal liability
>>> point of view.
>>
>> You've mentioned "legality" in the past. I'm not sure that is an issue.
>> I'm also not sure that it isn't.
>>
>> Without publishing the agreement with HP, we cannot know what is in it.
>> However, VSI has said that they have full rights to anything they
>> produce, and, that they have the right to sell, issue, whatever, VMS
>> releases produced by VSI.
>>
>
> The HPE agreement is not the issue here. VSI will probably need to show
> that any hobbyist licences are issued in a controlled and appropriate
> manner. Giving up control of that process to someone not employed by VSI
> will make that a _lot_ harder to demonstrate.

If the agreement with HP is not the issue, then I cannot guess what
might be an issue. It sort of specifies what VSI can do with VMS,
right? And anything else is entirely up to VSI, right?

Ah, a control freak ....

You don't know that, and, I don't know that.

Probably best to wait and see what VSI does.

[Bill Gunshannon]

There also is no longer a Mentec and all the IP was transferred.

bill

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 1:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2019 9:10 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>> Welcome to the same world as PDP-11 "Hobbyists". :-)
>>
>> Maybe, but, I don't think it's the same world.
>>
>> I'm not aware of any LMF type of thing on PDP-11 OSs. Does such exist?
>>
>> There is plenty of VAX/VMS media available. Not sure it's the same with
>> PDP-11 OSs.
>>
>> Probably the biggest problem for PDP-11 stuff is media. At least media
>> for which there still exists devices which can access such media.
>> Haven't seen a 9-track tape drive for quite a long time.
>>
>> Another issue would be documentation. Back in the day it was all on paper.
>>
>
> As Bill says, there are various media kits and documentation sets available
> (and the media kits are compatible with SimH).

Guess I haven't noticed, mostly because I have no interest.

> The main issue is whether you are still legally allowed to run the PDP-11
> operating systems under SimH. Mentec created a hobbyist licence which
> allowed people to run older versions of the various PDP-11 operating
> systems for hobbyist purposes.

"Legally". An interesting word. Just what does it mean. Various
people can have varying opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
No one is guaranteed their opinion has any meaning. When multiple
entities do not agree, that is when lawyers live off other people's money.

> However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
> on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
> meaning of the wording used).

But, as you mentioned, the stuff is readily available to the public,
AND, I don't see anyone attempting to prevent that. So, an opinion
might be that it's allowable to use what's readily available. And if no
entity attempts to stop them, might it be both morally and legally Ok?

> However, DEC no longer own SimH and so the argument made by some people
> is that the Mentec hobbyist licence is now invalid because there is no
> longer any DEC owned emulator.

Is there still a Mentec? If so, kind of hard to see.

If one still wants to argue legality and morals, first be prepared to
show "harm done". That is usually what must be demonstrated in a court
of law.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr3dqa$j3k$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
> program VSI may eventually come up with.

Perhaps, but what good reason is there not to have one? Those people
running VAXes in production have commercial licenses, which don't
expire. No-one will say "how, I can get a hobbyist license, I'll set up
my new commercial application on a VAX and save on license costs, even
though it is against the rules". If anything, people running VAXen in
production will be paying for support, not for licenses, but will that
be available from any of the (current or former) owners of (some aspects
of) VMS?

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr3fcn$t7m$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:

> > What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
> > VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
> > When can we expect it to be set up?
> >
> > At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
> > supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
> > there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
> > both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.
>

> You are coming across as having a bit of an entitlement complex Phillip.

No, not at all; I'm merely recalling what was promised.

> You can't assume that whatever hobbyist licence VSI may come up with will
> allow full access to the range of VMS capbilities. Didn't someone say that
> the current VSI student kit doesn't have clustering support ?

Back then, "similar to what is currently available" was what was said.

> You also can't even assume that VSI will finally decide to create a VSI
> hobbyist licence. There is absolutely no obligation on them to do so.

I never said that there was, merely that VSI people said during the
conference call that there would be.

> I personally think VSI not creating a hobbyist program will be very
> short term thinking on the part of VSI which will damage them, but that's
> for VSI to decide. I just wish VSI would make up their minds quickly
> so we know whether it's worthwhile to continue maintaining a VMS hobbyist
> setup at home.

Agreed. MANY hobbyists would probably BUY x86 hardware if they could
run VMS on it.

> VSI will also need to be convinced that any hobbyist program will be used
> within the constraints that VSI state, so anyone suggesting ideas to
> work around the end of the existing hobbyist licences from HPE are just
> damaging the prospect of any future hobbyist program from VSI.

Indeed.

> To rephrase that: you are _not_ entitled to a free or low cost hobbyist
> licence and if such licences are issued, any organisation issuing them
> needs to be convinced they are going to be used within the constraints
> the organisation have laid out. I think it's in the best interests of
> VSI for them to maintain an active hobbyist program, but that's for VSI
> to decide.

Agreed.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr3o29$h61$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
> >> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
> >> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
> >> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
> >> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
> >> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
> >>
> >
> > Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
> > licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
> > program VSI may eventually come up with.
>

> Suspect?
>
> Say, not a chance.
>
> VSI does not have a VAX release, and cannot issue anything for
> DEC/Compaq/HP releases.
>
> VSI has no reason to do any such thing.
>
> VAX/VMS will run, in a very limited way, without any license. There is
> always access from the console.

HPE could issue a VAX hobbyist license, even a perpetual one. I don't
see what they would stand to lose.

Many VAX hobbyists would probably be willing to PAY for a VAX hobbyist
license.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr43mv$r7f$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> "Legally". An interesting word. Just what does it mean. Various
> people can have varying opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
> No one is guaranteed their opinion has any meaning. When multiple
> entities do not agree, that is when lawyers live off other people's money.

The opinion that matters is that of the courts.

> > However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
> > on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
> > meaning of the wording used).
>

> But, as you mentioned, the stuff is readily available to the public,
> AND, I don't see anyone attempting to prevent that. So, an opinion
> might be that it's allowable to use what's readily available. And if no
> entity attempts to stop them, might it be both morally and legally Ok?

Neither. By your arguments, child pornography should be legal.

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 5:14 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <qr43mv$r7f$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> "Legally". An interesting word. Just what does it mean. Various
>> people can have varying opinions. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
>> No one is guaranteed their opinion has any meaning. When multiple
>> entities do not agree, that is when lawyers live off other people's money.
>
> The opinion that matters is that of the courts.

Which is why lawyers live off of other people's money.

Do you know of any court decisions on THIS SPECIFIC CASE?

>>> However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
>>> on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
>>> meaning of the wording used).
>>
>> But, as you mentioned, the stuff is readily available to the public,
>> AND, I don't see anyone attempting to prevent that. So, an opinion
>> might be that it's allowable to use what's readily available. And if no
>> entity attempts to stop them, might it be both morally and legally Ok?
>
> Neither. By your arguments, child pornography should be legal.
>

Real good Phillip. Throw something out there that is sure to make your
argument seem valid. Now, perhaps stick to the subject, and leave the
little girls alone.

You do like that argument. You've used it before, I believe. Why is
that? Something on your mind?

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 5:04 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <qr3dqa$j3k$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
>> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
>> program VSI may eventually come up with.
>
> Perhaps, but what good reason is there not to have one?

It is not a question of to have one, or not. It is a question of who
will provide such.

VSI as far as I know has nothing to do with VAX. They are not in any
position to do anything with a VAX hobbyist program. They most likely
are prohibited to do so, and, why should they? Why would they want to
do so?

> Those people
> running VAXes in production have commercial licenses, which don't
> expire. No-one will say "how, I can get a hobbyist license, I'll set up
> my new commercial application on a VAX and save on license costs, even
> though it is against the rules". If anything, people running VAXen in
> production will be paying for support, not for licenses, but will that
> be available from any of the (current or former) owners of (some aspects
> of) VMS?
>

Not from HPe. Not from VSI.

[Dave Froble]

On 11/20/2019 5:07 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <qr3fcn$t7m$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>>> What is the probability that, as mentioned in the first conference call,
>>> VSI will have a hobbyist programme similar to that of HP at the time?
>>> When can we expect it to be set up?
>>>
>>> At the same conference call, it was said that Alpha and x86 would be
>>> supported in the same cluster, at least for migration, so presumably
>>> there will be Alpha and x86 hobbyist licenses, or one which works for
>>> both, though perhaps only for some VSI version of Alpha VMS.
>>
>> You are coming across as having a bit of an entitlement complex Phillip.
>
> No, not at all; I'm merely recalling what was promised.

I don't recall any such "promises" from VSI. Intentions, perhaps. Such
can change.

>> You can't assume that whatever hobbyist licence VSI may come up with will
>> allow full access to the range of VMS capbilities. Didn't someone say that
>> the current VSI student kit doesn't have clustering support ?
>
> Back then, "similar to what is currently available" was what was said.
>
>> You also can't even assume that VSI will finally decide to create a VSI
>> hobbyist licence. There is absolutely no obligation on them to do so.
>
> I never said that there was, merely that VSI people said during the
> conference call that there would be.

And there most likely will be, when they have time for it. Getting VMS
in front of as many eyes as possible is in VSI's best interest.

>> I personally think VSI not creating a hobbyist program will be very
>> short term thinking on the part of VSI which will damage them, but that's
>> for VSI to decide. I just wish VSI would make up their minds quickly
>> so we know whether it's worthwhile to continue maintaining a VMS hobbyist
>> setup at home.
>
> Agreed. MANY hobbyists would probably BUY x86 hardware if they could
> run VMS on it.
>
>> VSI will also need to be convinced that any hobbyist program will be used
>> within the constraints that VSI state, so anyone suggesting ideas to
>> work around the end of the existing hobbyist licences from HPE are just
>> damaging the prospect of any future hobbyist program from VSI.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> To rephrase that: you are _not_ entitled to a free or low cost hobbyist
>> licence and if such licences are issued, any organisation issuing them
>> needs to be convinced they are going to be used within the constraints
>> the organisation have laid out. I think it's in the best interests of
>> VSI for them to maintain an active hobbyist program, but that's for VSI
>> to decide.
>
> Agreed.
>

[Alexander Schreiber]

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
> In article <qr3o29$h61$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
><da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> >> While we all are interested how the VSI hobbyist program will work (and
>> >> when), this is only half the answer. I assume that there are quite a few
>> >> hobbyists around who use VMS on physical and/or emulated VAXen or just
>> >> enjoy running historic equipment with software from the days when this
>> >> equipment was built. And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to)
>> >> issue licenses for DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX hobbyist
>> > licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever hobbyist
>> > program VSI may eventually come up with.
>>

>> VSI does not have a VAX release, and cannot issue anything for
>> DEC/Compaq/HP releases.
>>
>> VSI has no reason to do any such thing.
>>
>> VAX/VMS will run, in a very limited way, without any license. There is
>> always access from the console.
>
> HPE could issue a VAX hobbyist license, even a perpetual one. I don't
> see what they would stand to lose.
>
> Many VAX hobbyists would probably be willing to PAY for a VAX hobbyist
> license.

(raise :hand)

Yup, I would in fact be willing to shell out cold hard cash for a
non-expiring hobbyist license.

Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

[Arne Vajhøj]

My point is that the expiration date is current day + 13 months
*not* end of HPE support. They just happen to be pretty close
in this case.

Arne

[Arne Vajhøj]

I think that is the wrong question. The right question is what would
they stand to gain. And if the answer is nothing then it will not
happen.

> Many VAX hobbyists would probably be willing to PAY for a VAX hobbyist
> license.

Not anything that HPE will consider significant.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/20/19 6:07 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 5:04 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <qr3dqa$j3k$1...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
>> <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>
>>> Unless something dramatic happens, I suspect there will be no VAX
>>> hobbyist
>>> licence of any kind after the end of 2020, regardless of whatever
>>> hobbyist
>>> program VSI may eventually come up with.
>>
>> Perhaps, but what good reason is there not to have one?
>
> It is not a question of to have one, or not.  It is a question of who
> will provide such.

After 2020 it wold have to be VSI as there will be nobody else in
the VMS business.

>
> VSI as far as I know has nothing to do with VAX.  They are not in any
> position to do anything with a VAX hobbyist program.  They most likely
> are prohibited to do so, and, why should they?

I would need to hear that from VSI before I would accept it as a fact.
I can think of no reason why having anything to do with the VAX would
have been prohibited.

> Why would they want to
> do so?

Why are there computer museums popping up all over the place running
real hardware rather than just having pictures or non-functional static
displays? Why are there still VAX VMS Hobbyists?

>
>>  Those people
>> running VAXes in production have commercial licenses, which don't
>> expire.  No-one will say "how, I can get a hobbyist license, I'll set up
>> my new commercial application on a VAX and save on license costs, even
>> though it is against the rules".  If anything, people running VAXen in
>> production will be paying for support, not for licenses, but will that
>> be available from any of the (current or former) owners of (some aspects
>> of) VMS?
>>
>
> Not from HPe.  Not from VSI.
>

I agree with this statement. There is no VAX support offered now and
hasn't been for quite some time as far as I know. We are not talking
about offering support, only making it possible for people who have an
interest in archaic hardware and software to continue.

bill

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/20/2019 2:20 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 1:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> The main issue is whether you are still legally allowed to run the PDP-11
>> operating systems under SimH. Mentec created a hobbyist licence which
>> allowed people to run older versions of the various PDP-11 operating
>> systems for hobbyist purposes.
>
> "Legally".  An interesting word.  Just what does it mean.  Various
> people can have varying opinions.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
> No one is guaranteed their opinion has any meaning.  When multiple
> entities do not agree, that is when lawyers live off other people's money.
>
>> However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
>> on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
>> meaning of the wording used).
>
> But, as you mentioned, the stuff is readily available to the public,
> AND, I don't see anyone attempting to prevent that.  So, an opinion
> might be that it's allowable to use what's readily available.  And if no
> entity attempts to stop them, might it be both morally and legally Ok?

Everybody is free to have the opinion that water runs upwards.

That does not change the fact that water runs downwards.

Everybody can have weird ideas about copyright, but the basics are
pretty simple.

One cannot use stuff without permission. The default is cannot use.
One need to be able to show a permission (license from copyright holder
or a law that grant permission) to be able to use stuff. In all
countries that has signed the Berne convention. That is practically
everywhere.

Let me make a few quotes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

<quote>
In most cases, software classed as abandonware is not in the public
domain, as it has never had its original copyright officially revoked
and some company or individual may still own rights. While sharing of
such software is usually considered copyright infringement, in practice
copyright holders rarely enforce their abandonware copyrights for a
number of reasons
...
Rarely has any abandonware case gone to court, but it is still unlawful
to distribute copies of old copyrighted software and games, with or
without compensation, in any Berne Convention signatory country.
...
Old copyrights are usually left undefended. This can be due to
intentional non-enforcement by owners due to software age or
obsolescence, but sometimes results from a corporate copyright holder
going out of business without explicitly transferring ownership, leaving
no one aware of the right to defend the copyright.

Even if the copyright is not defended, copying of such software is still
unlawful in most jurisdictions when a copyright is still in effect.
</quote>

<quote>
Currently, US copyright law does not recognize the term or concept of
"abandonware" while the general concept "orphan works" is recognized
</quote>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work

<quote>
In countries whose laws do not specifically allow for the use of orphan
works, orphan works are not available for legal use by filmmakers,
archivists, writers, musicians, and broadcasters. Because rightsholders
cannot be identified and located to obtain permission, historical and
cultural records such as period film footage, photographs, and sound
recordings cannot be legally incorporated in contemporary works in such
countries (unless the incorporation qualifies as fair use).
</quote>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States

<quote>
Beginning in May 2006, various legislative bills have been introduced in
Congress aimed at addressing the issue of orphan works. As of 2016,
Congress has not yet passed any legislation.
</quote>

>> However, DEC no longer own SimH and so the argument made by some people
>> is that the Mentec hobbyist licence is now invalid because there is no
>> longer any DEC owned emulator.
>
> Is there still a Mentec?  If so, kind of hard to see.
>
> If one still wants to argue legality and morals, first be prepared to
> show "harm done".  That is usually what must be demonstrated in a court
> of law.

In some countries.

Other countries (and that includes the US !!) there is also the
possibility of statuary damages for copyright infringement.

In the US up to 150 K$ per infringement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the
HP versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.

It would be good for the VMS community.

Not sure if it would be good for VSI.

I doubt HPe will do anything worthwhile.

It could be argued that HPe is abandoning VMS. That would be helpful.

[Robert A. Brooks]

On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
> versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.

We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.

We are not going to do that.

Period. End of discussion.

--
-- Rob

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr4uie$6og$1...@dont-email.me>, "Robert A. Brooks"

<FIRST...@vmssoftware.com> writes:

> On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>

> > Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
> > versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.
>

> We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
> a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.
>
> We are not going to do that.
>
> Period. End of discussion.

I don't think that anyone in this discussion was suggesting that there
be a new version of VMS for VAX. Rather, the question is whether some
sort of hobbyist license for VAX will be available in the future.

[Alexander Schreiber]

Robert A. Brooks <FIRST...@vmssoftware.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>
>> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
>> versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.
>
> We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
> a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.

There is no expectation of that ever happening, because why would a company
invest what I'm sure is by now a significant amount of engineering effort
for no gain whatsoever?

> We are not going to do that.
>
> Period. End of discussion.

And nobody in this thread is expecting that in my opinion. The discussion
was around if there was a chance of either a continuing of the OpenVMS
hobbyist program (for which the effort is limited to the issuance of
licenses, a few orders of magnitude lower than a new VMS release) or an
open end by issuing of non-expiring OpenVMS hobbyist licenses - both
for VAX and Alpha, in order for hobbyist use of OpenVMS to be able to
continue.

[seasoned_geek]

On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>

RSTS/E is sexy!

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 1:57 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> The HPE agreement is not the issue here. VSI will probably need to show
>> that any hobbyist licences are issued in a controlled and appropriate
>> manner. Giving up control of that process to someone not employed by VSI
>> will make that a _lot_ harder to demonstrate.
>
> If the agreement with HP is not the issue, then I cannot guess what
> might be an issue. It sort of specifies what VSI can do with VMS,
> right? And anything else is entirely up to VSI, right?
>
> Ah, a control freak ....
>
> You don't know that, and, I don't know that.
>
> Probably best to wait and see what VSI does.
>

I'm responding to Phillip's suggestion that someone outside of VSI could
manage the hobbyist program for free.

To understand what I am getting it, imagine that the product you make at
your company requires a licence key before it will work on a customer site.

Imagine also that you are willing to offer hobbyist licences to people
for non-commercial use using the same licencing technology as your paying
customers.

Would it be a viable option for your company to hand over the secret
key generation data to a volunteer third party not employed by you so
they can generate hobbyist licences ? How would you sanction the third
party if they used the data to start creating licences that they shouldn't ?

Or would you require that any hobbyist program is managed by your
employees as part of their duties and hence their behaviour is subject
to your employment contracts ?

[Simon Clubley]

Once again Phillip, you are thinking purely about what you want without
thinking about the issues involved in that.

The question you need to answer is _why_ would HPE do this ?

Why should HPE invest the time, money, and other resources in investigating
this and making decisions about whether it is ok to do this ?

What is in it for HPE to do that ?

[Simon Clubley]

No, RSTS/E was ok for its time, but is inferior to what VMS later offered.

What would have been more interesting however is if someone had made
a portable version of RSX from scratch (written in a high level language
using RSX-like APIs and UI but without any of the DEC code) that would
have run on modern embedded hardware.

That could have found a home in today's small embedded systems.

[Dave Froble]

There was a time when some felt that RSTS should have been ported, or
re-implemented, on VAX. After some work by VMS development in
coordination with the RSTS community, that desire faded away. DEC did a
good job of giving the RSTS users what we said we needed. This work
gave me great respect for VMS developers.

[Dave Froble]

On 11/21/2019 2:46 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:
> Robert A. Brooks <FIRST...@vmssoftware.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
>>> versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.
>>
>> We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
>> a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.
>
> There is no expectation of that ever happening, because why would a company
> invest what I'm sure is by now a significant amount of engineering effort
> for no gain whatsoever?
>
>> We are not going to do that.
>>
>> Period. End of discussion.
>
> And nobody in this thread is expecting that in my opinion. The discussion
> was around if there was a chance of either a continuing of the OpenVMS
> hobbyist program (for which the effort is limited to the issuance of
> licenses, a few orders of magnitude lower than a new VMS release) or an
> open end by issuing of non-expiring OpenVMS hobbyist licenses - both
> for VAX and Alpha, in order for hobbyist use of OpenVMS to be able to
> continue.
>
> Kind regards,
> Alex.
>

The problem is, VSI can only issue licenses, or whatever, for releases
that VSI has offered. They cannot issue licenses for any releases of
VMS they did not offer. Not "will not", but "can not".

So, in order to issue licenses for VAX/VMS, VSI would have to make a
release. They most likely will not do so. It does not seem to have any
chance to benefit them.

Therefore, it seems that any future for VAX hobbyist usage must come
from whoever holds the rights to the old releases of VAX/VMS, which
right now seems to be HPe.

Note that VSI has released two (2) versions of Alpha VMS.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/21/19 8:46 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-21, seasoned_geek <rol...@logikalsolutions.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>
>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>
> No, RSTS/E was ok for its time, but is inferior to what VMS later offered.

Well, of course it is. And V5 Unix is inferior to current generation
FreeBSD. But, it could have continued to be developed and it could even
have been ported to the VAX instead of creating VMS. I knew places that
were still running RSTS for very serious production use well into the
90's.

>
> What would have been more interesting however is if someone had made
> a portable version of RSX from scratch (written in a high level language
> using RSX-like APIs and UI but without any of the DEC code) that would
> have run on modern embedded hardware.

That is what I would like to do with RSTS/E. Purely academic as neither
of them stands a chance of ever being accepted in the IT world today.

>
> That could have found a home in today's small embedded systems.

There actually is an interesting port of RSX. Never having been a
fan of RSX I haven't tried it yet but I do have the needed hardware
and do plan on trying it sometime. Who knows, maybe there are some
tidbits in the ported version of the source to do the port of RSTS
I always wanted to see.

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/21/19 10:33 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/21/2019 7:35 AM, seasoned_geek wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>
>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>>
>
> There was a time when some felt that RSTS should have been ported, or
> re-implemented, on VAX.  After some work by VMS development in
> coordination with the RSTS community, that desire faded away.

Desire fade away from who? RSTS users or VMS developers?

> DEC did a
> good job of giving the RSTS users what we said we needed.  This work
> gave me great respect for VMS developers.
>

As I said, RSTS remained in use long after VMS became available. It
was only the death of the PDP-11 itself, caused by DEC, regardless
of the number of users still running all of the OSes, that killed it
RSTS.

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

Not for those of us still wanting to run VMS on a VAX.

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

I can't believe anyone seriously expects a new or even a re-badged
version of VMS for the VAX. Just a license key to allow it and its
layered product to continue to run.

bill

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr6be1$68t$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

<da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> On 11/21/2019 2:46 AM, Alexander Schreiber wrote:

> > Robert A. Brooks <FIRST...@vmssoftware.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
> >>> versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.
> >>
> >> We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
> >> a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.
> >
> > There is no expectation of that ever happening, because why would a company
> > invest what I'm sure is by now a significant amount of engineering effort
> > for no gain whatsoever?
> >
> >> We are not going to do that.
> >>
> >> Period. End of discussion.
> >
> > And nobody in this thread is expecting that in my opinion. The discussion
> > was around if there was a chance of either a continuing of the OpenVMS
> > hobbyist program (for which the effort is limited to the issuance of
> > licenses, a few orders of magnitude lower than a new VMS release) or an
> > open end by issuing of non-expiring OpenVMS hobbyist licenses - both
> > for VAX and Alpha, in order for hobbyist use of OpenVMS to be able to
> > continue.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Alex.
> >
>

> The problem is, VSI can only issue licenses, or whatever, for releases
> that VSI has offered. They cannot issue licenses for any releases of
> VMS they did not offer. Not "will not", but "can not".

Probably "may not".


--
http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/helbig/helbig.html

[Dave Froble]

Perhaps this is a language issue?

From what VSI has said about the HP agreement, they "CAN NOT" issue
licenses, patches, and such to any older version of VMS that they did
not themselves release.

I understand "may not" as something that is optional.

[Dave Froble]

Would be nice. VSI is unable to do that.

[seasoned_geek]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 7:46:55 AM UTC-6, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2019-11-21, seasoned_geek wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >
> >> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
> >> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
> >>
> > RSTS/E is sexy!
>
> No, RSTS/E was ok for its time, but is inferior to what VMS later offered.
>
> What would have been more interesting however is if someone had made
> a portable version of RSX from scratch (written in a high level language
> using RSX-like APIs and UI but without any of the DEC code) that would
> have run on modern embedded hardware.
>
> That could have found a home in today's small embedded systems.
>

RSX was doggie doo.

RSTS/E was sexy.

The "embedded" attempt was made. It was sold as RT-11.

RSTS/E was sexy.

[seasoned_geek]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 9:56:27 AM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 11/21/19 8:46 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:

> > On 2019-11-21, seasoned_geek wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
> >>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
> >>>
> >> RSTS/E is sexy!
> >
> > No, RSTS/E was ok for its time, but is inferior to what VMS later offered.
>
> Well, of course it is. And V5 Unix is inferior to current generation
> FreeBSD. But, it could have continued to be developed and it could even
> have been ported to the VAX instead of creating VMS. I knew places that
> were still running RSTS for very serious production use well into the
> 90's.
>

It's still in production in California. I posted the job opening a few months back.

RSTS/E is sexy.

[Mark Berryman]

From what I was taught in my various english classes,

Can not means "physically incapable"
May not means "lacking permission"

So, VSI may not issue VAX licenses because they do not, and will not,
have a VAX release of their own and do not have permission from HPE to
issue VAX licenses for any of their releases.

(For completeness, because the word "may" can also be used in a context
that refers to probability, the phrase "may not" can also be used to
indicate "less than likely", or some other level of probability less
than 1. E.g. if he keeps that up he may not be able to finish the race).

Relatively few people in the good ol' USA use the terms correctly,
anymore than they know the difference between lie and lay, who and whom,
affect and effect, your and you're, etc.)

Mark Berryman

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <qr6lmh$73t$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

> Perhaps this is a language issue?
>
> From what VSI has said about the HP agreement, they "CAN NOT" issue
> licenses, patches, and such to any older version of VMS that they did
> not themselves release.
>
> I understand "may not" as something that is optional.

That would be "might not". They probably physically can, but are not
allowed to, hence "may not".

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Note that the first "VSI OpenVMS Alpha" was more or less just a recompile
of the then current "HP OpenVMS Alpha". Then came an optimized version
for later Alpha processors...

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/21/2019 11:05 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

The reality seems to be that:
* VSI can not legally produce a license (commercial or hobbyist)
for a non-VSI VMS version
* there is no business case for producing a VSI VMS VAX version
with the bottom line that VSI will not produce a hobbyist VMS VAX license.

Arne

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

The easy "solution" for anyone wanting to run VMS/VAX is to just get
any of the old licenses "out there". Noone will ask any questions...

[dgordo...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 5:20:54 PM UTC-5, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:

> Note that the first "VSI OpenVMS Alpha" was more or less just a recompile
> of the then current "HP OpenVMS Alpha". Then came an optimized version
> for later Alpha processors...

No. The "Alpha Evaluation Kit" was V8.4-2 source compiled for Alpha and the V84-2L1/2L2 two Alpha kits were V8.4-2L1 source compiled for Alpha two ways.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/21/2019 5:56 PM, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2019-11-21 kl. 23:43, skrev Arne Vajhøj:
>> On 11/21/2019 11:05 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> On 11/20/19 9:59 PM, Robert A. Brooks wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have,
>>>>> including the HP versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist
>>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
>>>> a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.
>>>>
>>>> We are not going to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Period.  End of discussion.
>>>
>>> I can't believe anyone seriously expects a new or even a re-badged
>>> version of VMS for the VAX.  Just a license key to allow it and its
>>> layered product to continue to run.
>>
>> The reality seems to be that:
>> * VSI can not legally produce a license (commercial or hobbyist)
>>    for a non-VSI VMS version
>> * there is no business case for producing a VSI VMS VAX version
>> with the bottom line that VSI will not produce a hobbyist VMS VAX
>> license.
>

> The easy "solution" for anyone wanting to run VMS/VAX is to just get
> any of the old licenses "out there". Noone will ask any questions...

The two questions:
* is it legal?
* are there any risk of getting caught?
are two different questions.

I believe/hope that the first question still matters to the
vast majority of people.

Arne

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Probally for the vast majority of professional users.
I'm not that sure about the vast majority of hobbyists...


> Arne
>
>

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

OK, right... So, apart from the EV6 (maybe EV56) optimized version, was
there any other major functional difference between HP and VSI OpenVMS
Alpha?

[Dave Froble]

First, I'm guessing there were more VAX licenses issued than all the
rest combined. DEC sold the licenses. They were perpetual, even if
only for the system and customer. Not sure how many exist.

Is it legal? Well, some might argue that DEC is no longer around to
suffer harm. Then the question might be, is it better for things to no
longer exist, or, is it better for some harmless use to be obtained from
them? If some owner of the IP was still attempting to get revenue from
them, then no, it is not legal. That isn't happening.

Hell, Trump is legal, even if he's a lying, back stabbing asshole ....

Please don't get me started ....

As for getting caught? Most likely no chance of that. First the entity
bring charges would need a copy of the license to prove it was theirs.
Figure the odds of such paperwork still existing. After the move to
Compaq, then HP, very small chance.

If one was to just start typing and just by chance the LMF allowed that
the random typing worked, is that stealing? One might cry out
"copyright". I've got to wonder if the copyright is in the executibles.
I know it's in DCL command procedures. Don't use them.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Based on comments from previous (from many moons ago) PDP-11
discussions and here, your belief/hope is probably very misplaced.

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

Arne,

I rest my case.

bill

[Henry Crun]

On 21/11/2019 14:35, seasoned_geek wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>
> RSTS/E is sexy!
>

+++1

--
Mike R.
Home: http://alpha.mike-r.com/
QOTD: http://alpha.mike-r.com/qotd.php
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#before
and: http://alpha.mike-r.com/jargon/T/top-post.html
Missile address: N31.7624/E34.9691

[Dave Froble]

On 11/21/2019 11:23 PM, Henry Crun wrote:
> On 21/11/2019 14:35, seasoned_geek wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>
>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>>
>
> +++1
>

Ready

[Henry Crun]

On 22/11/2019 8:18, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/21/2019 11:23 PM, Henry Crun wrote:
>> On 21/11/2019 14:35, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>>
>>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>>>
>>
>> +++1
>>
>
> Ready

PLEASE SAY HELLO
(RSTS circa V6)

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-21, Henry Crun <mi...@rechtman.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2019 14:35, seasoned_geek wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>
>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>>
>
> +++1
>

Ok everyone, why the love for RSTS/E in 2019 ?

It's utterly obsolete, has no modern security or networking, has a limited
address space that heavily restricts the type of applications you can run, etc.

Simon.

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

[Simon Clubley]

Even if David doesn't care about the legal issues, I hope he realises
that comments like this harm the chances of a VSI hobbyist program
ever existing when people look at the above types of comments and
wonder if trying to provide free access to VMS to hobbyists is worth it.

[Dave Froble]

David is TOTALLY legal. The VAX license was bought and paid for,
registered in my company's name. Alpha developer license is legal.

I do care about "legal", and the rights of vendors.

What I'd rather not see is VAX/VMS becoming unusable by hobbyists. Why
should such a thing happen?

As for moral considerations, when something is shared, then later taking
away that sharing is, in my mind, very immoral. When a company develops
and makes available an OS, and urges people to use said OS to develop
software, then those users have a stake in the software. What could be
more immoral than the vendor then saying "Ok, we got you to invest time
and money, and now we're jerking the rug out from under you". Note that
the current customers would have a perpetual license, but, where do they
get new people to use or work on their software, if new people cannot
get access to the OS.

Ok, that whole rant is neither black or white, but some shade of grey,
as are most issues. Also, we're discussing VAX, which is long past most
usefulness.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/22/19 8:13 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-21, Henry Crun <mi...@rechtman.com> wrote:
>> On 21/11/2019 14:35, seasoned_geek wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:03:08 PM UTC-6, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bitsavers has a lot of it, but I still have quite a bit of paper
>>>> documentation for RT-11 and RSTS.
>>>>
>>> RSTS/E is sexy!
>>>
>>
>> +++1
>>
>
> Ok everyone, why the love for RSTS/E in 2019 ?
>
> It's utterly obsolete, has no modern security or networking,

Some people have said that about VMS. :-)

> has a limited
> address space that heavily restricts the type of applications you can run, etc.

Address space was a hardware restriction. Had it been ported to
the VAX originally that would not have been the case. Were it
ported to x86-64 today the applications could easily be as bloated
as on Windows (and rapidly today, Linux!)

bill

[Bill Gunshannon]

I said long ago (and still hold the opinion today) that this kind of
attitude prevented the existence of a hobbyist program for the Mentec
owned PDP-11 OSes.

bill

[Hans Bachner]

Dave Froble schrieb am 20.11.2019 um 17:06:
> [...]
> There is plenty of VAX/VMS media available.  Not sure it's the same with
> PDP-11 OSs.
>
> Probably the biggest problem for PDP-11 stuff is media.  At least media
> for which there still exists devices which can access such media.
> Haven't seen a 9-track tape drive for quite a long time.

I saw one yesterday - an exhibit in one of my customers' lobby :-)

Hans.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2019-11-22, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/2019 8:19 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>
>> Even if David doesn't care about the legal issues, I hope he realises
>> that comments like this harm the chances of a VSI hobbyist program
>> ever existing when people look at the above types of comments and
>> wonder if trying to provide free access to VMS to hobbyists is worth it.
>>
>

> David is TOTALLY legal. The VAX license was bought and paid for,
> registered in my company's name. Alpha developer license is legal.
>

I said nothing about what you do in your business David. I have assumed
that you use normal paid for commercial licences in your business.

I was purely referring to your comments about what you feel it is
acceptable for hobbyists to do in some circumstances.

> I do care about "legal", and the rights of vendors.
>
> What I'd rather not see is VAX/VMS becoming unusable by hobbyists. Why
> should such a thing happen?
>

For the same reasons that the legal situation around hobbyist licences
for the PDP-11 have become unclear.

> As for moral considerations, when something is shared, then later taking
> away that sharing is, in my mind, very immoral. When a company develops
> and makes available an OS, and urges people to use said OS to develop
> software, then those users have a stake in the software. What could be
> more immoral than the vendor then saying "Ok, we got you to invest time
> and money, and now we're jerking the rug out from under you". Note that
> the current customers would have a perpetual license, but, where do they
> get new people to use or work on their software, if new people cannot
> get access to the OS.
>

The new customers move onto the new thing the vendor is selling instead
of the thing the existing customers are using.

For example, new DEC customers were sold the VAX (and then Alpha) unless
they _really_ wanted the PDP-11 (and then eventually the PDP-11 was no
longer in the sales price list at DEC).

Using your arguments above, DEC should have continued selling the PDP-11
even when there was no longer a viable market for it. However, the market
changed and so the PDP-11 range was no longer viable for new customers so
DEC did the right thing and started pushing alternatives to the PDP-11
(including the VAX) instead.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 11/22/19 1:29 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2019-11-22, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 11/22/2019 8:19 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> Even if David doesn't care about the legal issues, I hope he realises
>>> that comments like this harm the chances of a VSI hobbyist program
>>> ever existing when people look at the above types of comments and
>>> wonder if trying to provide free access to VMS to hobbyists is worth it.
>>>
>>
>> David is TOTALLY legal. The VAX license was bought and paid for,
>> registered in my company's name. Alpha developer license is legal.
>>
>
> I said nothing about what you do in your business David. I have assumed
> that you use normal paid for commercial licences in your business.
>
> I was purely referring to your comments about what you feel it is
> acceptable for hobbyists to do in some circumstances.
>
>> I do care about "legal", and the rights of vendors.
>>
>> What I'd rather not see is VAX/VMS becoming unusable by hobbyists. Why
>> should such a thing happen?
>>
>
> For the same reasons that the legal situation around hobbyist licences
> for the PDP-11 have become unclear.

The hobbyist license for the PDP-11 has never been legally unclear.
A license was granted to run old versions of the OSes on a specific
emulator. That emulator was written by Bob Supnik when he was an
employee at DEC and it was apparently done as a part of his job as it
was recognized as DEC IP. When Bob retired and left DEC he was given
that IP and it ceased to belong to DEC and thus ceased to meet the
requirements of the Mentec License Agreement. No version of SIMH
since Bob's departure from DEC falls under the license and no real
hardware ever did.

Other than commercial licensing, which seems to have ended with the
demise of Mentec, there have been other license grants. I know, I
had one. Mentec granted me a license to run older versions of PDP-11
OSes on real hardware at the University I worked at for educational
purposes. Just like the infamous Mentec Hobbyist License that license
ceased to be valid when I left the University.



bill

[Bob Koehler]

In article <qr6be1$68t$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> The problem is, VSI can only issue licenses, or whatever, for releases
> that VSI has offered. They cannot issue licenses for any releases of
> VMS they did not offer. Not "will not", but "can not".

True.

But subject to change if the parties involved agree to do so. Sadly,
I can see no reason for HP to bother.

[Bill Gunshannon]

And I can see no reason why VSI would either!

bill

[Scott Dorsey]

Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>
>Using your arguments above, DEC should have continued selling the PDP-11
>even when there was no longer a viable market for it. However, the market
>changed and so the PDP-11 range was no longer viable for new customers so
>DEC did the right thing and started pushing alternatives to the PDP-11
>(including the VAX) instead.

No, using his arguments, DEC should have opened up the PDP-11 architecture
and formally stated that it was okay for any company to make a clone of the
PDP-11 for anyone who might need one, and that it was okay to run DEC
operating systems on such clones.

Nobody is asking anyone to continue supporting an obsolete system, they are
just asking them to permit users to continue running it and to allow new
users to run it without interference.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Dave Froble]

Well, I can see at least one reason. The more eyes on VMS, the better
for VSI.

Nor would any future entity running a hobbyist program for DEC/Compaq/HP
versions of VMS have to be VSI. HP could transfer the rights to just
about anyone or anything. Note, I'm not expecting them to do so.

It sure would be nice for them to say to VSI, we're getting totally out
of the VMS business and all it encompasses. Here is the whole thing.
(And the hobbyist program be part of that package.)

[Dave Froble]

I see a difference between HW and software. Your arguments are all
about HW.

If a vendor were to jerk the rug out from under me on a product they
sold me, why would I purchase their new product? Fool me once, shame on
you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You sound like Microsoft.