[Info-vax] Licenses on VAX/VMS 4.0/4.1 source code listing scans

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/10/2021 5:03 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 3:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/10/2021 12:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> If one is willing to pay for something, but there is no one available 
>>> to pay,
>>> than what?  Either one does without, or, one does whatever is necessary.
>>> While there may be those who feel I should just do without, I do not 
>>> agree
>>> with them.
>>>
>>> Case in point.  We at Consolidated Data insist that all our customers 
>>> have
>>> support for their commercial use VMS systems.  That is our ethics.  
>>> However,
>>> should the time come when there is nobody to pay for such support, 
>>> and the
>>> license terminates, and VMS stops working, then I will bypass the 
>>> licensing to
>>> keep my customer in business.  That is my ethics.
>>
>> I really don't get that.
> 
> No, you really don't.
> 
>> If the same customers needed a loan and the bank said no would
>> bank robbery be justified?
> 
> We are not discussing something an entity doesn't already have.  We are 
> discussing a product that customers have bought and paid for.  Your 
> example is way wrong.

I don't think we are discussing something that the customer have bought
and paid for.

If that is the case there is nothing to discuss. Continuing is legal and
it does not require any work.

>> I don't think so.
>>
>> I also somewhat doubt that those companies would agree to run their
>> business on illegal software.
> 
> That's the question, isn't it?  Is it really illegal to use a product 
> one has already purchased and paid for?

If one has paid for an forever license then one can legally use forever.

If one has paid for an N year license then one can legally use for
N years. After N years it becomes illegal because it has not been paid
for.

That should be pretty obvious.

> In the hypothetical situation where a vendor requires a customer to 
> continue with support, if the vendor is no longer available to provide 
> such support, is that any fault of the customer?  It would be the vendor 
> that changed things, not the customer.  The vendor would have broken the 
> contract, not the customer.

I can't follow you.

Customer pays vendor for a license for N years. Vendor provide such a
license.

Vendor is legally and morally obliged to ensure that the license
work for N years.

Vendor does not have any legal or moral obligations after the N years.
Customer has a legal and moral obligation to stop using software after
the N years.

Arne