[Info-vax] Entitled attitudes, was: Re: vax vms licenses

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <s2jjnp$9mu$1 at dont-email.me>, Chris Hanson
<cmhanson at eschatologist.net> writes: 

> On 2/26/21 7:10 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> > I seriously doubt that playing with VMS on VAX is a good way to get
> > people interested in VMS, so that is a red herring.  Some people want to
> > continue to run VMS on VAX as a hobby.  While I sympathize, sometimes it
> > just isn't possible, and in my view it is way out of line to openly say
> > it is OK to flaunt the terms of the license just because you cannot get
> > the license you want.
> 
> It is possible though. Very easily, in fact. You keep saying it's not, 
> but it is. It's just against the terms of the license.
> 
> That doesn't make it illegal in most jurisdictions; it's a civil matter, 
> not a criminal one, and you'd have to be discovered and then whoever 
> owns the IP would have to actually care enough to try to pursue legal 
> remedies to

That doesn't make it right.

> You seem to think that how hobbyists treat VAX/VMS will affect how 
> companies decide to do things in the future. That's ridiculous. Any 
> company that uses how hobbyists treat running an operating system on 
> multi-decade-old hardware to inform their current marketing and business 
> strategies is terrible at business.

Considering that representatives of VSI have said so publicly hear, i.e. 
agreeing with me and not with you, I think that you should reconsider.

> Hobbyists who want to use VMS on VAX---and Alpha, and Itanum---will continue 
> to do so with or without HPE and VSI's help. And as long as they're not 
> costing VSI any commercial sales, why should VSI give a shit?

Because they might fear that a new hobbyist license would be abused, and 
that would cost them something.