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

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 12/10/21 8:05 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 12/10/2021 6:52 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 12/10/21 4:50 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2021 2:23 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/2021 1:25 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-12-10, Dave Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even ignoring the legal issues with that (and you know my position in
>>>>>> this general area :-)), do you have the knowledge needed to actually
>>>>>> do this bypass ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't, where do you intend on getting this knowledge from ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll defer answering that question, for now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So are you saying you don't actually have the knowledge needed to 
>>>> create
>>>> the patch needed to bypass the LMF ?
>>>
>>> I'm just not saying ...
>>>
>>>>> Instead, I'll ask these questions.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the problem, if there is nobody to question such usage?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ownership of assets doesn't cease just because a company fails.
>>>>
>>>> You are setting yourself and your customers up for a future owner
>>>> of the VSI assets to come after you, especially if you reduce the
>>>> resale value of those assets by coming up with a way to bypass the
>>>> need for existing VMS customers to purchase more of those assets.
>>>
>>> If there is an entity that allows my customers to continue, then 
>>> there isn't
>>> an issue, is there?
>>>
>>> If there is not an entity, who, other than you and Bill, is going to 
>>> really
>>> give a damn?
>>
>> The owner of the IP might.  And their lawyers might see violators as
>> low hanging fruit to recover some of their losses.  :-)
>>
>>>
>>>>> What is your opinion of a vendor potentially destroying a 
>>>>> customer's business?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You know what VSI have done by putting time limits on production
>>>> licences and you could port away today if the risk is unacceptable
>>>> to you.
>>>
>>> Porting is not an option.
>>
>> Porting is always an option.  There is nothing done on a computer
>> that can not be done on another computer.  You may think the work
>> required is excessive and you  might think the cost is excessive
>> but that doesn't mean it can not be done.
> 
> If the work and cost is excessive, then porting is not an option.  Sure, 
> anything can be done, but, can it be paid for?
> 
>>>> That is your legal option to remove this risk.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think so many people are angry with VSI for introducing
>>>> time-limited production licences instead of just saying that they
>>>> will patch VMS to bypass the licences if VSI fails ?
>>>>
>>>> They clearly understand the legal issues and risks involved with trying
>>>> to do what you suggest.
>>>
>>> Ok Simon, I'll turn things around.  If you had customers depending on 
>>> VMS, or
>>> any software, and the vendor went away, and your customers needed to 
>>> continue
>>> to use their applications, what would you do?  Would you do whatever was
>>> necessary for your customers to continue, or, would you tell your 
>>> customers
>>> "too bad, you lose"?
>>
>> A wise man wouldn't wait until the drop dead date to fix a problem.
>> The customers complaint would not be with you, necessarily, it would
>> be with the owners of VMS or that other software that just went away.
>> But, no company I know of has just dropped dead all of a sudden.
>> There are always warning signs.  And due diligence says when you
>> start to see warning signs you should start your preparations for
>> launching the lifeboats.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm talking right now, today, no time for your port, or anything else.
>>>
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> bill
>>
> 
> So, in your opinion, should customers continue to stick with VMS?
> 

Not my call to make.  I no longer have a dog in the fight.
If the p[people using VMS feel comfortable staying there that's fine.
Obviously, many already have not.  I think the current owners are a
better bet than the last. At least the current owners actually want
to see it succeed. But only the current users can make the decision
of whether or not to stay.  And assume all the risks that entails.

bill