[Info-vax] VSI OpenVMS Community License

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 3/26/2024 2:44 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> In article <utulvc$1pmvc$1 at dont-email.me>, news at cct-net.co.uk says...
>> Just received 2 mails from VSI
>>
>> End of Alpha and I64 community licenses
>>
>> Looks like a more restricted X86 - WE can download a pre-built and
>> licensed VMDK with a few LP, including compilers
>>
>> Or there is an Ambassador program
>>
>> Not sure what to think yet...
> 
> I think the community license/hobbyist program has officially ended -
> the x86 vmdks are something entirely different and a continuation of
> that student thing they were doing before.
> 
> Going to be interesting to see what sort of damage this does to OpenVMS.
> I suspect their "community engagement" is going to pretty much disappear
> entirely as a result of this which may put the long-term future of
> OpenVMS at risk.
> 
> Could do some significant damage to any open-source packages that aren't
> being directly maintained by VSI themselves too. And not just on Alpha
> and Itanium - I don't think I'd bother porting/maintaining stuff if its
> not going to be used outside of perhaps a few commercial users even if I
> could use the Ambassador program to do it at no cost.
> 
> And for that matter, what exactly is the purpose of the Ambassador
> program? Why should I want to "bring value to VMS Software" when VMS
> software has no interest in bringing value to the community? It sounds
> an awful lot like an unpaid job to me, especially with the requirement
> to participate in meetings and "report on your work in the ecosystem".

I think that is the main point.

That some hobbyists are sorry that they can no longer run
VMS on their 25 year old Alpha's is not in itself a valid
business concern for VSI.

But I believe that VSI (and before them HPE and HP) has
had significant benefits from the CL program (previously
the hobbyist program).

A huge part of the open source available for VMS was not
created/ported by VSI/HPE/HP but by hobbyists.

The availability of open source is critical for VMS
future. To modernize the interface and integration for legacy
systems. And maybe some day to actually implement new systems.

It will be a lot more expensive for VSI to do all that
work themselves than administering an attractive CL program.

And I also believe that VSI has had huge benefits from the
CL community for the x86-64 port as "unpaid testers of
FT versions". I know that the CL community has found a
significant number of compiler bugs. And I assume that
VSI paying customers appreciate that they did not get to
find those bugs in their environment.

The VMS community is highly skewed:
* there is a very small group doing most of the contributions -
   porting open source, testing FT releases, answering questions
   from beginners etc.
* there is a small group of new people that want to
   learn VMS
* there is a huge group that like to run VMS as a hobby, lurks
   around in various forums but rarely contribute
* there is a mid size group of whiners that does not run VMS
   at all but like to hear themself talk about what VSI should
   do in 2024 or what DEC should have done in 1984 or whatever

The idea behind the changes seems to be that:
- the first group will join VMS ambassador program
- the second group will be OK with the new CL program
- the third group does not matter

But I don't think the first group will join VMS ambassador program.
Well - some will. But a lot will not. They don't like the name.
They don't like the commitment. They don't like what happened
to the third group.

Yesterday I guessed that half of the first group would join
VMS ambassador program, but based on feedback since then that guess
seems too high today.

The changes does not make business sense for VSI.

Arne