[Info-vax] What Will Drive More OpenVMS Adoption?

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <solnaj$uvn$5 at dont-email.me>, Simon Clubley
<clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: 

> >> > Using commercial software has nothing to do with VMS licenses.
> >> 
> >> Huh ?????????????????
> >
> > ????????
> >
> > Obviously VMS is commercial and its use involves VMS licenses.  That is 
> > not the topic here.  The question is whether the hobbyist license would 
> > cover open-source development on VMS for commercial software and, if so, 
> > if that would be the case only if the developer received no 
> > compensation.
> 
> I think David might be asking if you can run commercial software on
> a hobbyist system.
> 
> For example, if you could somehow get hold of a legal copy of Word Perfect
> for Alpha, could you run it on a hobbyist system for personal use ?
> 
> If so, that's a good question, and I don't know the answer.

VMS licenses are relevant for running VMS.  It is clear that the
hobbyist license is not applicable if I use VMS, or anything running on
it, for commercial purposes, meaning that I profit from it.  But if
someone write a program which does something which I, as a hobbyist,
want to do---say, just as an example, that it prints out prime
numbers---and charges money for it (thus it is commercial for that
programmer), what type of license VMS is running under is irrelevant. 

I can barely conceive of the mindset which thinks that a commercial VMS 
license would be needed to run a program which costs money.