[Info-vax] Eisner's PAKs, was: Re: Can't get hobbyist licenses from Openvmshobbyist

[JF Mezei]

On 15-01-13 07:09, MG wrote:

> Definitely... and, better yet, they need to seriously consider
> abolishing these ridiculous PAKs.

I am not so sure about that. The concept of a OS provided LMF that is
standard is neat IF it allows not only primary vendor but also *easily*
allows ISVs to tailor their software.

OS-X for instance has no such mechanism, so each app that needs to
enforce some sort of licensing needs to build it's own. Adobe products
use a 3rd party which means there are "unknown" nonAdobe files in some
Library folders that are actually part of the Adobe software. Not pretty.

What can be improved are the business practices around the PAKs, what
sort of restrictions are imposed etc.

For instance, I buy a package, it shouldn't matter what size machine I
run it on. (and certaintly not what serial number etc).

On the other hand, with the unfortunate move to "subscription" software
(what companies often brag about "cloud" which is not since it is just a
check for software over the internet to see if you have paid this
month), the LMF is not really necessary.


Considering the workload VMS has, I would think the easiest way around
LMF is simply issuing "kind"  PAKs that have versatility so that don't
require customers contant vendor whenever the upgrade a node etc.