[Info-vax] c 7.3 - Why MAYLOSEDATA3 for long pointer math?

[JF Mezei]

On 15-03-15 19:59, David Froble wrote:

> I haven't seen any claims that HP retains the exclusive rights to 
> anything VSI produces.  It could be.  We just don't know.

HP retains the customers on hardware older than Poulson. So VSI can't
sell VMS 9.0 to someone on an Tukwila box for instance. But HP can
negotiate with VSI to distribute 9.0 to Tukwilla based VMS customers.

> What is to prevent a VMS customer from switching their support to VSI ?

Because the deal doesn't allow VSI to sell into HP's client base (older
than Poulson).

> Still, it would not surprise me to learn that HP sold the cow, but 
> retained the milking machine ....

HP has retained the trademark for OpenVMS, and retains the rights to the
OS. VSI has obtained rights to develop it and sell to customers buying
Poulson or later IA64 or x86. (or other platforms).

> Why should they care?  It's not like they're losing anything.  Hobbyists 
> won't be purchasing support or patches.

Because if a Tukwila customer can get patches for free over the internet
from VSI, then said customer is no longer interested in paying HP for
support.

It is quite possible that over time, HP will hand over the whole kit to
VSI.  But that hasn't happened yet.

>  From what has been said publically, it seems that HP could indeed sell 
> x86 systems with VMS, and sell support for those systems.

I agree. But they would pay VSI for rights to distribute, just as they
would pay VSI for rights to distribute any version produced by VSI. And
I assume HP could commission VSI to produce patches for older version of
VMS so HP could distribute to their customers.

This arrangement makes a lot of sense since VSI didn't buy VMS from HP,
it only got rights to develop it. So thete would be restrictions on what
market VSI could attack.