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

[Dave Froble]

On 8/8/2021 8:47 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-08-08, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG <VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG> wrote:
>> In article <sen4f7$sfu$1 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>> On 2021-08-07, Bob Eager <news0009 at eager.cx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I always thought that the primary purpose of LMF was a 'light touch' way
>>>> of making sure that compaies kept up with their licensing, even if the
>>>> company was a bit disorganised.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a major change between then and now.
>>>
>>> Back in those days hardware cost a _lot_ of money. If you had enough
>>> money to buy the hardware, you also had enough money to buy the
>>> software.
>>>
>>> These days hardware is cheap compared to the cost of the software.
>>> There is a much stronger motivation for some people to try and
>>> break the licencing so they can run the expensive software on
>>> cheap hardware.
>>>
>>> The old LMF is no longer suitable for purpose in this new world
>>> with its different dynamics and I would be absolutely amazed
>>> if VSI were not looking at making the licencing software much
>>> stronger as a result.
>>
>> HOW is it no longer suitable?  More WEENDOZE-like licensing?  There
>> have been publications of a Micro$oft checksum sieve too.  Is theirs
>> unsuitable as well?
>>
>
> A third party has created a tool that can generate valid functioning
> licences as required without having needed to steal any private
> signing keys (for example) from VSI or HPE.
>
> That should tell you all you need to know about whether using the
> LMF as it stands is still a viable option in today's world of low-cost
> hardware and high-cost VMS software.
>
> I'll now make another prediction related to VMS hobbyist licences:
>
> Sometime around the end of the year or shortly afterwards, the
> discussion about VAX hobbyist licences will start again as the
> last valid hobbyist licences for the VAX architecture expire and
> hobbyist VAX systems stop working.
>
> Someone will ask if they can get hold of new VAX licences and
> someone else will suggest that this pakgen tool can be used to
> generate a set of new hobbyist licences. :-(
>
> Someone may even post instructions to use this tool or even post
> a set of VAX licences to comp.os.vms or elsewhere. If that happens
> all hell will break loose and may even result in the cancellation
> of the VSI hobbyist program.

Why should VSI care about VAX?

If VSI is going to continue with the CL, then there is no reason to look 
elsewhere for PAKs, and, hobbyists would feel more at ease reporting 
something to VSI, than if they used a non-VSI PAK.

Now, if you're going to say that VSI might get upset with the concept of 
people continuing to have hobbyist VMS systems, should VSI cease to 
exist, well, again, why should VSI care?

> Just remember this before you do that: VSI are under no obligation
> to offer a hobbyist program. By helping to create VAX licences in
> this way, you may end up destroying the future x86-64 hobbyist program.

Or, it maybe a non-event ...


-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486