[Info-vax] [Attn: HP Employees] PDP-11 OS hobbyist licensing

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <l2k19n$88m$1 at iltempo.update.uu.se>,
	Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
> On 2013-10-03 16:19, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <H8udnWlQO9XhU9HPnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d at giganews.com>,
>> 	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
>>> On 10/1/2013 11:17 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <l2eehl$opp$2 at iltempo.update.uu.se>,
>>>> 	Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>>>>> On 2013-09-30 22:07, Rich Alderson wrote:
>>>>>> Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2013-09-29, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2013-09-30 01:13, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PPS: Now if we could just sort out the PDP-11 OS hobbyist licensing
>>>>>>>>> situation so we can clear up any licensing doubts about running them under
>>>>>>>>> simh; simh has clearly maintained it's status as a decent quality emulator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Do you know the right people at HP, and could you please talk to them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I don't unfortunately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I'm going to take this opportunity to ask the HP employees in
>>>>>>> c.o.v if _they_ know who the correct person is to talk to as you have tried
>>>>>>> various approaches and made comments for years about wanting to do something
>>>>>>> about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one at HP has anything to do with the PDP-11.  Mentec bought the IP from
>>>>>> Digital prior to the Compaq purchase, so HP never owned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately incorrect, Rich.
>>>>> DEC sold the PDP-11 software to Mentec, but retained control over how
>>>>> Mentec were allowed to spread the software.
>>>>> That right has been transferred over to HP as a part of HP taking over
>>>>> the remains of DEC.
>>>>> Which is a big reason why no hobbyist licenses for the PDP-11 OSes
>>>>> exist. They need approval from HP. Mentec could not do it by itself, and
>>>>> neither can the current owners. It's all very sad.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That being the case, one must wonder just why they bought them!!
>>>>
>>>> bill
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone made a poor decision.  Or perhaps it was a good decision
>>> and no one understands it yet.  In two or three years we will see if the
>>> decision was good or bad.  Situations like this are why a few people are
>>> paid astronomical salaries, they get good results in situations that
>>> look less than promising!
>>
>> Well, we don't know what he paid for Mentec (at least I don't) and he was
>> a former meployee of some sort.  Maybe the cost was trivial and he was
>> nostalgic.  :-)
> 
> Maybe I'm confused here. I thought we were talking about when Mentec 
> bought this from DEC, not when XX2247 bought the remains from Mentec.

I was talking about XX2247.  There is no doubt that at the time that
Mentec came into the picture there was still considerable commercial
business for the PDP-11.  But this recent purchase is much more curious.
I doubt there is enough PDP-11 business left to actually make a living
dealing in them.  When I first heard that someone was buying Mentec for
the PDP-11 IP I (obviously mistakenly) thought it was someone with an
in who was looking to make them available to hobbyists and that there
was no commercial interest.

> 
> Since XX2247 is not really doing much business, I guess the question is 
> less relevant here. They probably didn't pay much, and are not making much.

And this is where I meant it.  David Carroll was a former Mentec employee
thus my comment about nostalgia.  I can not think anyone would believe that
there is enough business in the PDP-11 to start a company to support them
today.

> 
> Mentec did the deal when there was still some money left to be made. Why 
> they accepted the restrictive conditions surrounding it all I have no idea.

I think they agreed to a deal that let them do what they wanted, which was
offer continued support for the PDP-11 installed base and even expand it a
bit.  They did, afterall, do hardware development as well as software.

I am once again looking at disappointment.  I really do want to try porting
RSTS/E to other machines.  Not because I see any commercial viability in it
but because I really liked RSTS/E and I think it could be both interesting
and fun.  OK, and i am a glutton for punishment....  :-)

Johnny, wouldn't you find it a challenge but interesting to port RSX to
a more  modern hardware platform just to see what more it could do with
more horsepower under the hood?  ARM?  :-)

bill


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>