[Info-vax] The VSI Hobbyist program is Live!

[David Goodwin]

On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 6:21:32 AM UTC+12, Chris wrote:
> On 07/29/20 18:42, Simon Clubley wrote:
> > On 2020-07-29, abrsvc  wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 29 July 2020 10:42:23 UTC-4, Dave Froble  wrote:
> >>> On 7/29/2020 8:58 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The VSI terms appear to be very reasonable to me apart from one thing
> >>>> which is an absolute deal-breaker for me.
> >>>>
> >>>> The licence allows VSI to remotely connect to your systems to check
> >>>> for compliance and to require you to make such access to VSI available
> >>>> if they ask for it. It's the last part of 2a in the agreement.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> If you are going to object to a clause in the agreement, you should quote
> >> that clause accurately:
> >>
> >
> > I did Dan unless you can come up with a different answer to my questions below.
> >
> >> "You acknowledge that VSI may monitor your compliance with Use
> >> restrictions remotely or otherwise, and you agree to provide reasonable
> >> cooperation in connection therewith."
> >>
> >
> > How else would you interpret the words "monitor" and "remotely" in the
> > above sentence ?
> >
> > If the above interpretation is accurate, then why would you otherwise
> > have to "agree to provide reasonable cooperation in connection therewith." ?
> > The only answer I have is that VSI are saying you have to give them a means
> > into your systems to check on this.
> >
> > The language above is vague enough that it could cover any host systems
> > you are running Alpha emulators on or host systems that you are running
> > VM software on when x86-64 arrives. It might even cover your local network.
> >
> > That's the one part of the agreement which really stood out for me
> > because the rest of it looks so reasonable.
> >
> > Simon.
> >
> 
> Might just be bad choice of words ?. After all, windows has sent back
> telemetry to ms for years. Others do similar, with Firefox it's an 
> option, "to improve the product", as do others.
> 
> It's obviously cost VSI time and money to put this together, for no
> perceivable gain, so perhaps stop quibbling the detail and concentrate
> on the big picture, which is: free to use for non commercial purposes.
> Great, a big thanks wouldn't be a bad idea...

I'd say its for quite a major perceivable gain.

Your typical Windows or Linux developer or sysadmin has never even heard of OpenVMS, let alone knows anything at all about it. Of those that have heard of it most will probably think its some obscure legacy OS and know little else about it.

An OS can't survive without a pool of people who know how to operate it and develop software for it. The Community License *should* be about expanding that pool to ensure the platform remains viable in the future.