[Info-vax] Hobbyist program on The Register

[bill]

On 4/9/2024 10:55 PM, John H. Reinhardt wrote:
> On 4/9/2024 8:38 PM, bill wrote:
>> On 4/9/2024 9:18 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2024 1:18 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> The changes to the hobbyist program have made it to The Register:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_prog/
>>>>
>>>> A number of comments about, ermm, "ways" to bypass the VSI limitations.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what the reaction of those people will be if VSI just outright
>>>> cancels the whole program in response, while blaming "certain 
>>>> attitudes"
>>>> for that decision ?
>>>>
>>>> Simon.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok Simon, I took the time to read that article, and the replies.  
>>> Didn't see too much about license bypassing.  One mention of an 
>>> existing method, and that method is much older than VSI, so nothing 
>>> new to them, or anyone else.
>>
>> Well, you had someone talk about taking the licenses off of the
>> distributed VM and using it on another.
>>
> 
> Been there, did that as reported by me in another thread.  It kept my 
> two earlier x86 OpenVMS systems running without having to migrate my 
> changes.  Of course, the vmdk licenses were fewer that what was on the 
> previous CLP version by 31. But a good number of them were covered by 
> the HAOE blanket license.  The ones that weren't were mostly odd things 
> very few used.

And you don't see that as "license bypassing" or a license violation?

> 
>>>
>>> I've wondered about the complaints about patching the CL 
>>> distributions. Not sure I understand.  What would stop a patch of 
>>> such?  Of course, there is the question of access to patches.
> 
> That's the complaint.  The assumption is that there will be no access to 
> patches nor new versions other than when the next CLP vmdk is released.  
> If the CLP stuff is only on a once-a-year vmdk distribution, then bug 
> fixes will be far and few between and if they are nasty ones then may 
> stop people from using the distribution at all.
> 
>>
>>
>> And, there's the rub.  If they aren't planning on letting CL users
>> run up to date systems they are apparently not planning on them
>> providing valid test data.  :-)
>>
>> For some of us it's a little funny to think that our beloved PDP-11
>> may out last VMS in production systems.
>>
>>
>> bill
>>
>>
>