The Doom of VAX VMS Hobbyist Licenses?

[rlje...@gmail.com]

All,

So despite months (since about the time of the last announcement email in march or so) of pinging the email (and their website) for the lab folks responsible for producing the last Hobbyist License I've never received a response back. I know they've been slow in the past so I just held out hope they were just REALLY REALLY slow with alot of final requests. Based on what I've read here, it seems like that's a common complaint...all email's go into a black hole. A dead end.

HPE appears to have washed their hands of it (all aspects of the Hobbyist program in any form). So that's another dead end.

I've also read that VSI has officially made it clear that they will not be doing anything related to the VMS for VAX. So that's yet another dead end.

My last VAX Hobbyist License has finally expired.

So I ask the VMS Sages of the Internet, where does that leave me now as far as usability of OpenVMS for VAX and all the related compilers / software I accumulated and tinker with for my hobby?

To put it bluntly, am I basically screwed? :)

Happy to hear any and all options.


Thanks!

Rick
rlje...@gmail.com

[Dave Froble]

Perhaps not.

First, without a license, you can still run VMS from the "console". Not
networking and such.

Read up thread, a post by Terry Kennedy. Quite interesting.

John Malmburg mentioned having a share, and petitioning the HPe board of
directors. If a well thought out petition caught the attention of a
civic board member, perhaps he/she would gather support from other
directors and get us permanent hobbyist licenses.

A diligent searcher just might find on the web techniques for defeating LMF.

--
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

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <17b761f4-1aaa-4599...@googlegroups.com>,

rlje...@gmail.com writes:

> So I ask the VMS Sages of the Internet, where does that leave me now as far
> as usability of OpenVMS for VAX and all the related compilers / software I
> accumulated and tinker with for my hobby?

Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
problems. If you want to be really careful and are aware that at some
point in the dim and distance past there was a rumour of a $300 transfer
fee, contact HPE and ask them how to pay it.

[Terry Kennedy]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 11:54:57 PM UTC-4, rlje...@gmail.com wrote:
> My last VAX Hobbyist License has finally expired.
>
> So I ask the VMS Sages of the Internet, where does that leave me now as far as usability of OpenVMS for VAX and all the related compilers / software I accumulated and tinker with for my hobby?
>
> To put it bluntly, am I basically screwed? :)
>
> Happy to hear any and all options.

Let's just say that I wouldn't do anything rash like discarding the equipment.

Since you posted your email address and there are people who have licenses that haven't expired yet, perhaps someone might mail you a copy of their somewhat newer HP Hobbyist license command file.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> A diligent searcher just might find on the web techniques for defeating LMF.
>

Since that comment shows you don't care about the legal or ethical
aspects of this, I will instead comment on the practical implications
of the above statement:

You have just added yourself to the list of people who are in danger of
seriously annoying VSI when it comes to deciding on the VSI hobbyist
licence and what form it is likely to take, if any.

Or more concisely: seriously David, you as well ??? :-(

Simon.

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

[Dave Froble]

On 7/20/2020 9:04 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> A diligent searcher just might find on the web techniques for defeating LMF.
>>
>
> Since that comment shows you don't care about the legal or ethical
> aspects of this, I will instead comment on the practical implications
> of the above statement:

I think Terry Kennedy has pointed out a legal possibility.

Ethical? Come now Simon, what ethical questions? VAX/VMS is not a
commodity with any value to the IP owner. Hasn't been for some time now.

In my opinion, yeah, we all get one, it could be considered more
unethical to just deny the usage of something such as VAX/VMS to hobbyists.

> You have just added yourself to the list of people who are in danger of
> seriously annoying VSI when it comes to deciding on the VSI hobbyist
> licence and what form it is likely to take, if any.

The VSI CL is basically granting such capabilities to people, so, how
could anything similar (remember, they will not be doing VAX, so it's
not the same thing) concern them?

Anything, anything that gets VMS in front of people is a win for VSI.

> Or more concisely: seriously David, you as well ??? :-(

Your simple minded attitude of "it's mine" and "I'll take my ball and go
home" appears to me to be the problem, not my attitude about people
being able to still play with VAX/VMS.

For the record, I do possess a valid commercial license, so, it's not
for me that I advance such ideas.

Perhaps I should post all my legal licenses here so you can see that I
have them?

:-)

[Dave Froble]

On 7/20/2020 3:24 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <17b761f4-1aaa-4599...@googlegroups.com>,
> rlje...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> So I ask the VMS Sages of the Internet, where does that leave me now as far
>> as usability of OpenVMS for VAX and all the related compilers / software I
>> accumulated and tinker with for my hobby?
>
> Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> problems.

Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.

> If you want to be really careful and are aware that at some
> point in the dim and distance past there was a rumour of a $300 transfer
> fee, contact HPE and ask them how to pay it.
>

No problem, the address is in the SIG below. I'll be expecting the $300
....

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/20/2020 11:02 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/20/2020 9:04 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> A diligent searcher just might find on the web techniques for
>>> defeating LMF.

>> You have just added yourself to the list of people who are in danger of
>> seriously annoying VSI when it comes to deciding on the VSI hobbyist
>> licence and what form it is likely to take, if any.
>
> The VSI CL is basically granting such capabilities to people, so, how
> could anything similar (remember, they will not be doing VAX, so it's
> not the same thing) concern them?

I don't know about VSI, but I think many commercial software
vendors prefer "we comply with all license requirements whether
they make sense or not" people over "we decide what license
requirements we want to comply with and which we don't
want to comply with" people.

Arne

[rlje...@gmail.com]

Thanks David for the response and suggestions. Worth looking at. I'd really prefer to be able to have the network functional since I hate having to run upstairs to the console to do anything. Plus you lose FTP and network printing goodness. :)

The permanent VAX hobbyist license would obviously be the preferred ideal, I'm just not optimistic anyone at HPe cares enough to spend any effort on something they've basically washed their hands of.

Thanks again!

[rlje...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the comment / suggestion. There is something to be said for good Karma, right? :)

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf44po$tph$7...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

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

> On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> >
> > A diligent searcher just might find on the web techniques for defeating LMF.
> >
>
> Since that comment shows you don't care about the legal or ethical
> aspects of this, I will instead comment on the practical implications
> of the above statement:
>
> You have just added yourself to the list of people who are in danger of
> seriously annoying VSI when it comes to deciding on the VSI hobbyist
> licence and what form it is likely to take, if any.
>
> Or more concisely: seriously David, you as well ??? :-(

Yes. Isn't there no hobbyist PDP license because of similar
shenanigans?

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf4bq9$3kq$2...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

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

> > Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> > it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> > problems.
>
> Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.

What is illegal?

> > If you want to be really careful and are aware that at some
> > point in the dim and distance past there was a rumour of a $300 transfer
> > fee, contact HPE and ask them how to pay it.

If there is a $300 transfer fee, that implies that they can change
hands.

[to...@frontieranalytical.com]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 8:26:06 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <>, Dave Froble

> <> writes:
>
> > > Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> > > it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> > > problems.
> >
> > Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.
>
> What is illegal?
>
> > > If you want to be really careful and are aware that at some
> > > point in the dim and distance past there was a rumour of a $300 transfer
> > > fee, contact HPE and ask them how to pay it.
>
> If there is a $300 transfer fee, that implies that they can change
> hands.

Lots of ethical, moral and legal issues at hand here.
All over software that's nearly extinct and most probably completely forgotten by the unwashed masses. Does Monkeysoft care about MSDos any more? Does IBM care about OS/2?
I'll wager that many of us have folders full of licenses for extinct software that ran on equipment that hit the scrap heap dozens of years ago.
I've personally got 20 or 30 legitimate copies of various flavors of Windoze products, DOS (multiple flavors), 95, Millineum, NT, NT for Alpha, OS/2 and many others. Not to mention my big file of VAX related stuff which hasn't been opened in a good 20 years or more.
Moral/ethical issues aside, how wrong would it be for someone to share this unused bounty with others, especially if no monetary value is associated or exchanged?

Inquiring minds and all that jazz........

[rlje...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 11:02:16 AM UTC-5, to...@frontieranalytical.com wrote:
> On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 8:26:06 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to > Lots of ethical, moral and legal issues at hand here.

> All over software that's nearly extinct and most probably completely forgotten by the unwashed masses. Does Monkeysoft care about MSDos any more? Does IBM care about OS/2?
> I'll wager that many of us have folders full of licenses for extinct software that ran on equipment that hit the scrap heap dozens of years ago.
> I've personally got 20 or 30 legitimate copies of various flavors of Windoze products, DOS (multiple flavors), 95, Millineum, NT, NT for Alpha, OS/2 and many others. Not to mention my big file of VAX related stuff which hasn't been opened in a good 20 years or more.
> Moral/ethical issues aside, how wrong would it be for someone to share this unused bounty with others, especially if no monetary value is associated or exchanged?
>
> Inquiring minds and all that jazz........

I am neither priest, lawyer, cop nor philosopher so I claim no legitimacy or righteousness for my view other than own imperfect sensibilities. I'm just a nerd with a strange passion for Computer Necromancy, personally don't think there is anything wrong with it. I suppose if pressed I'd liken it to fishing a book, record or box of software out of trash in a landfill. The old "And it harm none...." idea I suppose.

My $0.0668 adjusted for inflation.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> Ethical? Come now Simon, what ethical questions? VAX/VMS is not a
> commodity with any value to the IP owner. Hasn't been for some time now.
>

VAX/VMS is still the property of HPE. They are the ones who get to decide
what can and what cannot be done with it.

>
> The VSI CL is basically granting such capabilities to people, so, how
> could anything similar (remember, they will not be doing VAX, so it's
> not the same thing) concern them?
>

You really don't get it, do you David ?

If hobbyists cannot be trusted to respect HPE's terms and conditions when
HPE choose to grant them temporary free access to HPE's products, then why
should VSI trust anything that those same hobbyists will do when VSI is
considering granting those same hobbyists access to VSI's own products ?

_NOW_ do you get it David ?

>
> Your simple minded attitude of "it's mine" and "I'll take my ball and go
> home" appears to me to be the problem, not my attitude about people
> being able to still play with VAX/VMS.
>

Where exactly am I saying "it's mine" ?????? I'm saying the exact opposite.

It is however VSI's ball and they are well entitled to take their ball and
go home if hobbyists are not going to respect the VSI hobbyist terms.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf4k1c$87c$2...@dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley

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

> You really don't get it, do you David ?
>
> If hobbyists cannot be trusted to respect HPE's terms and conditions when
> HPE choose to grant them temporary free access to HPE's products, then why
> should VSI trust anything that those same hobbyists will do when VSI is
> considering granting those same hobbyists access to VSI's own products ?
>
> _NOW_ do you get it David ?

I sincerely hope that VSI won't punish all hobbyists due to the
misbehaviour of very few.

[Dave Froble]

On 7/20/2020 11:26 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <rf4bq9$3kq$2...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>>> Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
>>> it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
>>> problems.
>>
>> Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.
>
> What is illegal?

A DEC software license is not transferable by the licensee.

Your $300 transfer was something DEC did, not the licensee.

Having been a DEC reseller in the dim past, I'm well aware of how
licenses worked.

[Bill Gunshannon]

Mentec!!

bill

[Don North]

Is the remains of Mentec IP still owned by some random dude out in Colorado?

[Don North]

Corporation: xx2247, LLC (anybody who has used DEC knows what that means)

Info:
https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityHistory.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityDetail&pi1=1&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20101209825&entityId2=20101209825&srchTyp=ENTITY

founded in Jun 2010
last active in Aug 2018
delinquent as of Sep 2019

requires $10 filing fee per year to remain active

So?

[Bill Gunshannon]

As far as I have heard. But there hasn't really been much chatter
on that subject in a long, long time.

bill

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf4pdt$i8k$2...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

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

> >>> Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> >>> it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> >>> problems.
> >>
> >> Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.
> >
> > What is illegal?
>
> A DEC software license is not transferable by the licensee.
>
> Your $300 transfer was something DEC did, not the licensee.

Yes, of course, the $300 transfer was paid to DEC, but involved the
transfer of license from one person to another, so obviously they can be
transferred.

Or are you saying that if someone paid, say, $5000 for a license, he is
not allowed to sell it---for any price---but can only agree to have it
transferred (with someone paying $300 to DEC)?

[Bill Gunshannon]

That's the way I always understood it to be. It's a contract, not
a physical product. Real contracts require agreement by both parties.

bill

[David Wade]

From what I recall VSI have repeatedly and consistently said they do
not have the rights to issue new VAX/VMS licences. So unlike Mentec I
don't believe they own the rights to VAX/VMS and HPE would have to
pursue any licence violations.

Dave

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 7/20/2020 6:54 PM, David Wade wrote:
> From what I recall VSI have repeatedly and consistently said they do
> not have the rights to issue new VAX/VMS licences. So unlike Mentec I
> don't believe they own the rights to VAX/VMS and HPE would have to
> pursue any licence violations.

I thougth it was:
* per contract with HPE then VSI can only issue licenses for VSI VMS
* VSI will not release a VSI VMS VAX (because there is no business case)

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Actually, based on their and others comments they can not issue
licenses for any version they do not produce but do have the rights
to the VAX versions. They have just stated they have no intention
to produce any VAX version.

bill

[Dave Froble]

That is exactly what I'm saying.

A license has no value, it is not property. At least with DEC software
licenses, it is an agreement between DEC and the user, and cannot be
sold or transferred. Only DEC could transfer a license.

At least that's how DEC intended it. I'm sure some lawyer could
challenge the concept. Or at least try to do so.

Users paid a fee to use the software. It's a bit like rent. You don't
own the house after paying rent for years, do you?

[Dave Froble]

I recall that someone at VSI mentioned that they do have the VAX
sources. That they could issue a new VAX release. They also mentioned
"long after hell freezes over", and then longer ....

There is no reason for them to invest the time, resources, effort ...

[Scott Dorsey]

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) <hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de> wrote:
>In article <17b761f4-1aaa-4599...@googlegroups.com>,
>rlje...@gmail.com writes:
>

>> So I ask the VMS Sages of the Internet, where does that leave me now as far
>> as usability of OpenVMS for VAX and all the related compilers / software I
>> accumulated and tinker with for my hobby?
>

>Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
>it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal

>problems. If you want to be really careful and are aware that at some

>point in the dim and distance past there was a rumour of a $300 transfer
>fee, contact HPE and ask them how to pay it.

You cannot. I have a box of PAKs which came with computers that I bought,
but I cannot legally use any of them because the licenses are not legally
transferrable.

You cannot legally purchase a commercial license from anyone but HPE, and
when you purchase that license it is only legal for you to use, not
transferrable. Read the fine print on the back.

THIS is the problem. If someone from HPE would actually accept a transfer
fee, then we'd all be fine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Goodwin]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 5:25:02 AM UTC+12, Simon Clubley wrote:

> On 2020-07-20, Dave Froble wrote:
> >
> > Ethical? Come now Simon, what ethical questions? VAX/VMS is not a
> > commodity with any value to the IP owner. Hasn't been for some time now.
> >
>
> VAX/VMS is still the property of HPE. They are the ones who get to decide
> what can and what cannot be done with it.
>
> >
> > The VSI CL is basically granting such capabilities to people, so, how
> > could anything similar (remember, they will not be doing VAX, so it's
> > not the same thing) concern them?
> >
>
> You really don't get it, do you David ?
>
> If hobbyists cannot be trusted to respect HPE's terms and conditions when
> HPE choose to grant them temporary free access to HPE's products, then why
> should VSI trust anything that those same hobbyists will do when VSI is
> considering granting those same hobbyists access to VSI's own products ?

If VSI actually cares about selling OpenVMS none of this will bother them. Its better for them that people run pirated OpenVMS on their VAXen than NetBSD. One increases the number of people with OpenVMS experience, the other doesn't.

If VSI wants to succeed they *have* to make it freely available for non-commercial use. No time-limited license PAKs. No registration forms. No Special FTP servers with regularly changing passwords. These are all just spending money on raising barriers to entry. Just put a link to the installation media on the website with a disclaimer saying "For non-commercial use only".

Piracy is not a risk to VSI - people choosing Linux instead is.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <hnmsk2...@mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon

<bill.gu...@gmail.com> writes:

> > From what I recall VSI have repeatedly and consistently said they do
> > not have the rights to issue new VAX/VMS licences. So unlike Mentec I
> > don't believe they own the rights to VAX/VMS and HPE would have to
> > pursue any licence violations.
>
> Actually, based on their and others comments they can not issue
> licenses for any version they do not produce but do have the rights
> to the VAX versions. They have just stated they have no intention
> to produce any VAX version.

Right. However, the issue is that if VSI observes people ignoring legal
stuff with regard to the VAX hobbyist license, they might be hesitant
about supporting an x86 hobbyist license, even if they have no legal
connection to the VAX hobbyist license.

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf5g0j$ll0$1...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

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

> >>>>> Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> >>>>> it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> >>>>> problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.
> >>>
> >>> What is illegal?
> >>
> >> A DEC software license is not transferable by the licensee.
> >>
> >> Your $300 transfer was something DEC did, not the licensee.
> >
> > Yes, of course, the $300 transfer was paid to DEC, but involved the
> > transfer of license from one person to another, so obviously they can be
> > transferred.
> >
> > Or are you saying that if someone paid, say, $5000 for a license, he is
> > not allowed to sell it---for any price---but can only agree to have it
> > transferred (with someone paying $300 to DEC)?
> >
>
> That is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> A license has no value, it is not property. At least with DEC software
> licenses, it is an agreement between DEC and the user, and cannot be
> sold or transferred. Only DEC could transfer a license.

OK, so find someone with a license who is willing to transfer it, then
contact HP and ask how to pay the $300.

> Users paid a fee to use the software. It's a bit like rent. You don't
> own the house after paying rent for years, do you?

That's why I own my house. :-)

Business models differ. With the Amazon Kindle, theoretically you lease
or rent the eBooks, and Amazon can (and sometimes has) changed the
content or even deleted them. Other business models involve BUYING an
eBook in ePub format, which belongs to me as much as a paper book that
I've bought: It is my property, they aren't allowed to change it or
delete it, I can sell it, someone can inherit it, and so on. (To
prevent abuse, it is usually tied to my Adobe-ID or has a digital
watermark.)

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Maybe, byt that train has already left. It is my understanding that they
are busy building the technical platform for that offer. It would surprice
me a lot if they simply would stop that now, just because some VAX posts
here...

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <rf6bvl$2ih$1...@dont-email.me>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik....@telia.com>
writes:

> > Right. However, the issue is that if VSI observes people ignoring legal
> > stuff with regard to the VAX hobbyist license, they might be hesitant
> > about supporting an x86 hobbyist license, even if they have no legal
> > connection to the VAX hobbyist license.
>

> Maybe, byt that train has already left. It is my understanding that they
> are busy building the technical platform for that offer. It would surprice
> me a lot if they simply would stop that now, just because some VAX posts
> here...

They will certainly continue to build VMS on x86. The question is
whether there will be some sort of hobbyist license. I know that the
Community License has been announced, but details are sketchy, and in
any case it is a can-go-away-at-any-time-without-notice offering.

[Arne Vajhøj]

I am aware of many successful software vendors that do not
supply their stuff free for non-commercial usage, so it is
not that given.

Arne

[Bill Gunshannon]

Mentec!!!

Discussions for a PDP-11 Hobbyist program were in progress and Mentec
just dropped it all. No explanations. No further discussions. Many
of us in the community had our suspicions but it was moot at that point.

bill

[Doug Phillips]

There is this: http://enterpriselicense.hpe.com/SLT

# Hewlett Packard Enterprise
# Software License Transfer
#
# Hewlett Packard Enterprise recognizes that you, our customer, take
# licensing seriously, and that you want to be assured you are in total
# compliance. The Hewlett Packard Enterprise Software License Transfer
# process will offer you that assurance.
# The Software License Transfer policy applies only in the case of
# ownership changes for used Hewlett Packard Enterprise software license
# products.
# ...
# Enterprise Group Products (Servers, Storage, and Networking)
# Transfer is permitted for:
# HP3000, e3000 servers, HP9000, Integrity servers
# EVAs, StoreVirtual, 3PAR
# Systems with OpenVMS VAX, OpenVMS-Alpha and Tru64-Unix products
# ..."

There are links to forms and also some email addresses. The page shows a
2019 copyright but I haven't explored it any further.

[Jan-Erik Söderholm]

Den 2020-07-21 kl. 11:39, skrev Phillip Helbig (undress to reply):
> In article <rf6bvl$2ih$1...@dont-email.me>,
> =?UTF-8?Q?Jan-Erik_S=c3=b6derholm?= <jan-erik....@telia.com>
> writes:
>
>>> Right. However, the issue is that if VSI observes people ignoring legal
>>> stuff with regard to the VAX hobbyist license, they might be hesitant
>>> about supporting an x86 hobbyist license, even if they have no legal
>>> connection to the VAX hobbyist license.
>>
>> Maybe, byt that train has already left. It is my understanding that they
>> are busy building the technical platform for that offer. It would surprice
>> me a lot if they simply would stop that now, just because some VAX posts
>> here...
>
> They will certainly continue to build VMS on x86. The question is

> whether there will be some sort of hobbyist license...

No you misunderstood. VSI is currently building the tools for the
"Community licens" offer (Alpha, IA64 and x86). I was not talkning
about the x86 port as such...

As I understand, the Community License offer might very well be available
soon after the summer, and before there is a "working" x86 version.

> I know that the
> Community License has been announced, but details are sketchy, and in
> any case it is a can-go-away-at-any-time-without-notice offering.

Not since they are spending time on building the solution at this very
moment. I got that message weeks ago.

[Andy Burns]

rlje...@gmail.com wrote:

> Happy to hear any and all options.

Here's my opinion ... it's amazing how many times people can have the
same discussion of VAX hobbyist systems :-)

[Bill Gunshannon]

What's truly amazing is how this technology was abandoned and yet
after all this time there are still people using it. And enjoying
the experience.

bill

[Andy Burns]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> What's truly amazing is how this technology was abandoned and yet
> after all this time there are still people using it.  And enjoying
> the experience.

I have a VAXserver 3300 lurking downstairs that I doubt I'll ever throw
out, I kind of regret getting rid of the ALPHAserver 2100 but it took up
too much room.

[Dave Froble]

Abandoned ?????

I don't see it that way.

Regardless, when the C-VAX CPU was introduced was the time for DEC to
change directions. I believe that was before the IBM PC introduction,
but, I could be wrong. Yeah, hindsight is usually rather good.

If DEC had introduced low cost computers, using VMS as the OS, and
pursued the low cost market, perhaps we would not have Microsoft, Intel,
and a few others.

The dinosaurs in charge were still thinking about replacing IBM, using
the hugely successful VAX 9000 to turn large piles of money into small
piles of money, and wondering why anyone would want a computer in their
home.

Wasn't abandoned, it was frittered away.

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 7/21/20 4:56 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 7/21/2020 2:36 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 7/21/20 1:41 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> rlje...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Happy to hear any and all options.
>>>
>>> Here's my opinion ... it's amazing how many times people can have the
>>> same discussion of VAX hobbyist systems :-)
>>
>> What's truly amazing is how this technology was abandoned and yet
>> after all this time there are still people using it.  And enjoying
>> the experience.
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> Abandoned ?????
>
> I don't see it that way.

Maybe a poor choice of words. It's inventor and owner basically just
dumped it in favor of RISC, like so many others. But I am one who still
thinks that the VAX and, yes, the PDP-11 could have continued to develop
and moved forward. :-)

>
> Regardless, when the C-VAX CPU was introduced was the time for DEC to
> change directions.  I believe that was before the IBM PC introduction,
> but, I could be wrong.  Yeah, hindsight is usually rather good. >
> If DEC had introduced low cost computers, using VMS as the OS, and
> pursued the low cost market, perhaps we would not have Microsoft, Intel,
> and a few others.

Intel and Microsoft did not gain their position based on technical
superiority. Had much mnore to do with dubious business practices.
But history is being rewritten to cover all that up so people will
continue to believe things like the PDP-11 and VAX were junk.

>
> The dinosaurs in charge were still thinking about replacing IBM, using
> the hugely successful VAX 9000 to turn large piles of money into small
> piles of money, and wondering why anyone would want a computer in their
> home.
>
> Wasn't abandoned, it was frittered away.
>

Well, I meant abandoned in the sense of totally in house. No outsider
came along to kill VAX. DEC was more than happy to do it themselves
when they jumped on the RISC bandwagon.

bill

[Dave Froble]

I thought we were discussing VMS, not VAX.

If x86 could be turned into something useful, with enough effort, then
VAX also could have done the same. The N-VAX CPU was RSICy inside I
understand. Could have continued to make it work. consider, much of
what allowed the itanic to succeed in any manner was process shrinks and
massive on chip memory, not any really good tech.

But in 1990 the VAX was old tech, and new work had pointed to better
ways to proceed. Nothing wrong with that. Alpha was suppose to be good
for 25 years, and while abandoned toward the end of that period, it
still did much of what it was implemented to do.

[rlje...@gmail.com]

LOL. Well I admit I don't follow the group religiously, so for me it was good to get a sum-up of what I thought the position I was in and see if there's something I missed as far as options. Apparently I had. Even though there still seems to be some uncertainty about transfer or license as I read the discussion.

One of my other Techno-Archeology Hobbyist system is an emulated IBM System 370 running MVS 3.8 It seem like there's much less grey area in the space as a Hobbyist system :).

But I first got my taste of VAX VMS on my Universities VAX Cluster in the early 90s so I'll alway have a nostalgia for it that environment.

[rlje...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 1:36:59 PM UTC-5, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> What's truly amazing is how this technology was abandoned and yet
> after all this time there are still people using it. And enjoying
> the experience.
>
> bill

That does say something. Fortunately my wife treats my odd mania with bemused sympathy if not understanding. lol

[Hans Bachner]

Andy Burns schrieb am 21.07.2020 um 19:41:
> [...]

>
> Here's my opinion ... it's amazing how many times people can have the
> same discussion of VAX hobbyist systems :-)

Well, there are people maintaining and driving oldtimer cars, and others
keep steam locomotives and carriages of the same time in a running
condition, offering "nostalgy trips" on public or museum railway tracks
(in fact, I co-founded such an railway related association many moons
ago here in Austria).

I still take a trip with a steam train once in a while, and switch on
VAX computers for fun, in some cases even for business.

Hans.

[Simon Clubley]

On 2020-07-22, Hans Bachner <ha...@bachner.priv.at> wrote:
>
> Well, there are people maintaining and driving oldtimer cars, and others
> keep steam locomotives and carriages of the same time in a running
> condition, offering "nostalgy trips" on public or museum railway tracks
> (in fact, I co-founded such an railway related association many moons
> ago here in Austria).
>

Steam trains are a major thing over here:

https://www.nymr.co.uk/

There's plenty of videos about the NYMR on Youtube if you are interested.

Simon.

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

[Rod Regier]

FWIW, some of the used equipment brokers have access to legit HP commercial licenses thru magic channels.

Try talking to one of them about your VAX/VMS OS and LP license PAK
shopping list...

[Bill Gunshannon]

But don't get your hopes up expecting a break on the price. :-)

bill

[Rich Jordan]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:27:49 PM UTC-5, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <rf4pdt$i8k$2...@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble

> writes:
>
> > >>> Try to get a commercial license. Buy it from someone. If someone sells
> > >>> it to you, and you bought it in good faith, I don't see any legal
> > >>> problems.
> > >>

> > >> Actually Phillip, that is illegal under the license terms.
> > >
> > > What is illegal?
> >
> > A DEC software license is not transferable by the licensee.
> >
> > Your $300 transfer was something DEC did, not the licensee.
>
> Yes, of course, the $300 transfer was paid to DEC, but involved the
> transfer of license from one person to another, so obviously they can be
> transferred.
>
> Or are you saying that if someone paid, say, $5000 for a license, he is
> not allowed to sell it---for any price---but can only agree to have it
> transferred (with someone paying $300 to DEC)?

It has been years but my best recollection: DEC used to charge $300 to transfer the BASE license for a system when the system changed hands. Layered products, user licenses, etc, were not transferable. Sometime after HP bought Compaq they raised the price to (I think) $400, still for base license only.

So even a legal paid transfer left the new owner needing to purchase all new layered product and user licenses.

That was the same time HP backstabbed all the long time DEC VARs by requiring a minimum of one million dollars per year in hardware sales to remain a direct VAR; if you could not do that you had to tier under a distributor which of course cut margins for VARs substantially.

If HP is not maintaining the ability for someone to purchase the base license transfer then effectively all remaining VAXen cannot be sold or transferred to another party and used with VMS (other then hobbyist license) or layered products unless HP modifies the license terms.

Alpha and Integrity box recipients will at least have the (expensive but available) option of getting VSI product and licenses or holding out for the community license...

[David Goodwin]

On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 11:21:22 AM UTC+12, Rich Jordan wrote:

> If HP is not maintaining the ability for someone to purchase the base license transfer then effectively all remaining VAXen cannot be sold or transferred to another party and used with VMS (other then hobbyist license) or layered products unless HP modifies the license terms.

Even if you could transfer licenses for everything that ability isn't going to be around forever.

Unless someone can reinstate the VAX hobbyist program or get a non-expiring hobbyist license issued there will come a day when there is no legal way for someone new to run OpenVMS VAX.

Realistically, given the difficulty and cost of transferring licenses for most people that day will come at when the current lot of hobbyist licenses expire. That day will probably be the last time any of my VAXen ever boot the operating system they were built to run.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dave Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
>If DEC had introduced low cost computers, using VMS as the OS, and
>pursued the low cost market, perhaps we would not have Microsoft, Intel,
>and a few others.

DEC did introduce low cost computers, like the Rainbow. And they had
absolutely no idea that the microcomputer market was totally different
than the minicomputer market and absolutely no idea how to sell them.

Not only that, DEC introduced several different low cost systems that
took market share away from one another and totally killed whatever
economies of scale might have made them profitable.

I miss the Decmate II though.

[johnwa...@yahoo.co.uk]

DEC eventually introduced low cost (for DEC) computers e.g.
the AlphaStation 400 (same chassis as the equivalent x86 box,
different duaghtercard with different processor. There was
even an alleged upgrade path from the x86 to the Alpha). If I
remember rightly, the AlphaStation 400 was reasonably widely
used in the UK for medium-scale SCADA systems and such.

Same goes for the Personal Workstation family some time
later. Enclosure and mainboard largely common between the
Alpha versions and the x86 version, choice of Alpha or x86
depending on "industry standard" NLX-format daughtercard.
Except NLX wasn't really industry standard as Intel didn't
give Dell sufficient motivation ($$$$?) to use it. Hey ho.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLX_(motherboard_form_factor)