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

[David Froble]

MG wrote:
> Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) schreef op 19-jan-2015 om 22:23:
>> Isn't the serial number to keep people from distributing PAKs to
>> others? Yes, this GNU-bullshit "if I can copy it then I have the
>> right to distribute it" is still working against people who try
>> to make a living by producing something immaterial like software.
> 
> If you're worried about loss of revenue, people not being rewarded
> for their immaterial fruits of labor, livelhood and so forth...
> then why are you in favor of PAKs?  PAKs have been deterring new
> users (read: potential customers).  Many people I knew, who were
> interested in VMS for its features and functionalities were put
> off by the ridiculous PAKs and lost interest.
> 
> I'm not the biggest fan of GNU (nor the GPL, which you were
> obviously referring to) myself, but you're mischaracterizing them
> by claiming they're endorsing or even engaging in piracy.  The GPL
> license only pertains to anything licensed under it.
> 
> More importantly, PAKs are _not_ preventing piracy /at all/, they
> are only deterring potential new users and annoying existing ones.
> Because, as you may have noticed (already years ago), as it was
> even shared here on comp.os.vms, there's a LMF PAK generator.
> Before that, people used other tricks (so I read) to overcome
> LMF/PAKs.  That makes a lot more sense, from a piracy perspective,
> than if paying customers were "distributing PAKs to others" (which
> would even be easier to track back to them, thus not very wise...
> to put it very gently).
> 
> It's an open secret that most of the income for VMS was based on
> support contracts and such and whoever didn't or (e.g.) couldn't
> afford a contract was probably not large enough to cause much
> revenue loss to begin with.  That's how it works for many other,
> similar, operating systems, too.
> 
>  - MG
> 

I'm going to suggest that the entire PAK system with VMS be junked.  Now 
before anyone has a hissy fit, consider.

Any legitimate commercial user of VMS is going to "follow the rules". 
That's just the way it is, and if they are not, well, what has been lost?

Adopting the Red Hat concept that in order to use the OS for specific 
purposes, you must maintain a support contract.  That would be "the 
rule".  So, what are the twp possibilities?

1) a commercial user has and pays for a support contract

2) a commercial user decides to be a pirate

For #2 above, you're not going to see any revenue, whether VMS is used 
or not, so, what's the loss.  Yeah, someone is going to have a hissy fit 
about it, but, the bottom line is still "no revenue".  But not a loss 
either.

Now, most business men do not want to be exposing themselves to legal 
action, and really don't want to do so when it's a "no brainer", ie; 
they are definitely in the wrong.  I've know of cases where a company 
periodically performs audits to insure that they are not using software 
without paying for it.

Now let's discuss for a moment the non-commercial use of VMS.  For this, 
the question must be asked, is it better to try to squeeze blood from a 
rock, or is it better to have your OS as widely known as possible?  I 
suggest the latter is much preferable.  If you're not going to see, or 
even expect revenue from some users, at least they are using VMS and not 
something else, and some of those people may become employees at 
commercial users, or provide applications that run on VMS, thus 
enhancing the commercial use of the OS.  It has been widely accepted 
that what a student uses when in school is what he / she would first 
choose in a job at a commercial site.

The bottom line is, at least for me, the more people knowing about and 
using VMS outside a commercial user site, the more chance there is of 
VMS being used at a commercial site.

So, do away with the PAKs, set up the rules for when a support contract 
is required, and get VMS spread as far and wide as possible.

That is my perspective.

Also, one very important point, purchases are usually a capitol expense, 
and can be difficult.  A support contract is an operational expense, and 
many times "just happens", no decision required.