[Info-vax] VMS survivability

[Dave Froble]

On 2/18/2023 5:08 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tsrf3b$4krc$1 at dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 2/18/2023 3:20 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <memo.20230218104100.11588B at jgd.cix.co.uk>,
>>> John Dallman <jgd at cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <tsq2vo$3utev$1 at dont-email.me>, jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com
>>>> (Jan-Erik Söderholm) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> English version of the meeting notes:
>>>>
>>>> The license news is good. [snip]
>>>
>>> Meh.
>>>
>>> I'll be blunt: the only reasonable path for VMS to survive
>>> is to open source it under an OSI-approved license.  VSI
>>> should dedicated itself to finishing the x86_64 port and
>>> doing the necessary legal work to make that happen, and
>>> then pivot to consulting and services (honestly: this is
>>> what DEC should have done, and it's largely what IBM did
>>> in order to survive in the 00's).
>>>
>>> Trying to push VMS as a _product_ at any price point will
>>> undoubtedly lead to an ever-dwindling user base and an
>>> eventual fade into obscure irrelevancy.
>>
>> What benefits do you imagine for VSI, for customers,
>> if VSI were to do what you suggest.  Talking about
>> the "open source" issue.
>
> Establishment of a developer ecosystem, crowd-sourced fixes for
> bugs, security auditing, and ensuring the longevity of the
> software by no longer tying its existence to a very small
> company that las recently laying off engineers.
>
> In the meanwhile, VSI can dedicate itself to a long-term
> lucrative business model that, realistically speaking if
> they're talking about expanding the customer base at all,
> they'll have to lean into anyway.
>
>> That ignores the fact that they do not have the right to
>> do so, at least with what they got from HP.
>
> You quoted the part of my message that read that they should
> begin, "doing the necessary legal work to make that happen."
> Obviously this has not yet happened.  That does not mean they
> should not be working to make it possible.
>
>> I've
>> read that what VSI produces is theirs, and they could do whatever they want with
>> it.  We're pretty sure that any of the Macro-32 and Bliss code isn't from VSI.
>
> Sounds like something lawyers should start talking about.  Again
> I point to the model of what Sun microsystems was able to do
> with open sourcing a System V Unix variant.
>
>> But my primary question, what benefits do you see of "open source"?
>
> Let me turn this around on you: what do you see as the benefits
> of a closed-source, for-pay licensing model?  How does that
> drive sales and benefit customers?  How many margin dollars do
> they anticipate to make on licensing?

Today, I do not see any benefits, and I do see some downside, to the for-pay 
licensing model.  Nor have I seen such for some years now.

I may have mentioned in the past that I think VMS should be free to use, with 
mandatory support for commercial use.  I learned long ago that recurring revenue 
sure beats one-time revenue.

Thing is, VMS could do without licensing fees, and doesn't need to be open 
source to do so.  Two different things.  So, again, I ask, what benefits might 
open source provide.  Not much that I can see.

I'm not sure that VSI can finish the port without the added income of license 
fees.  Don't know.

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486