[Info-vax] Any stronger versions of the LMF planned ?, was: Re: LMF Licence Generator Code

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <sekme9$96d$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>On 2021-08-06, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 8/6/2021 8:41 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>
>>> Even _if_ that is the case Jim, this situation could provoke
>>> a strong response from VSI.
>>>
>>> For example, VSI are very clearly in a mindset that's all about
>>> collecting ongoing revenue from the users and making sure the
>>> users don't try "cheating".
>>
>> The first part of that is reasonable and how things must be if VSI and 
>> VMS are going to be around for a while.
>>
>> The second part is unreasonable paranoia.  Who and where are these 
>> "cheaters"?  I don't know of any.  Does anyone?  Most of us are just 
>> happy that VSI is there to support us, and we understand they need 
>> revenue to do so.  Which is why I prefer they have recurring revenue 
>> rather than one time license sales.
>>
>
>If VSI were not worried about such things, they would not be
>implementing time-limited licences on production machines.
>
>Whether they are actually _right_ to be worried about such things
>is a question I cannot answer.

LMF, the way it has been used by the keepers and caretakers of VMS, isn't
strong.  However, when it was implemented, VMS engineering said it wasn't
intended to be a enforcement tool.  There are fields in the LMF PAK that
can be employed to make PAK verification stronger.  I routinely make use
of the hardware ID and token fields to strengthen enforcement.  Perhaps,
before complaining about a VMS tool, you should learn a little bit more
about the tool.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.