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

[MG]

On 15-Mar-2021 22:12, Dave Froble wrote:
> See any trend here?

It's good that you didn't spare DEC.  I know DEC holds a lot of
sentimental value, but they made a lot of strange decisions throughout
their history (especially up to the end).

The whole PAK licensing model was arguably the worst.  It wasn't
even a product of its era, because plenty of its competitors didn't
resort to such a prohibitive and unattractive licensing system.  And,
if and when they did, it typically wasn't for the 'base' operating
system, mostly for some extra features and functionality, or if third-
parties wished to do so.  Tying 'base' operating system usage to the
hardware was very common policy, by Sun, SGI and plenty of other
big names at the time.

I never understood why DEC had to do things differently, perhaps they
felt they were in the same league as IBM for a bit too long?


> I sure don't want it to happen, but their business could fail.  Where 
> does that leave current paying support customers of VSI?  Will the past 
> repeat itself, or, will VSI do something to allow their customers to 
> continue to use VSI versions of VMS if for whatever reason VSI is gone?

I have a fairly good impression of VSI so far and the fact that they
seem to even bother with trying to, frankly, revive VMS (instead of
just keeping it on life support) is commendable.

I hope they will seriously reconsider the PAK licensing system.  I
do know what they could replace it with, but almost anything would
probably be an improvement at this point.

Unless they want to keep people on a short leash and impose 
inconveniences, like with the self-contained "Student Kit", which
would prevent people from undertaking serious free and open source
software, which would definitely benefit them on their business end
and would cost them relatively little, compared to what it may
generate in revenue.  (Especially if it's in good part enthusiast-
driven.)  But, I digress...

  - MG