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

[David Froble]

JF Mezei wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 

Or, much better, let anyone sample the software, and sell service to 
those who want to use it.