[Info-vax] VSI OpenVMS Community License

[Hans Bachner]

Simon Clubley schrieb am 27.03.2024 um 20:58:
> On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry at nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry at nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ah, ok.  I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
>>>> Community License Program," not the personal one you got.  It occurs to
>>>> me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
>>>> September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected.  For
>>>> OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
>>>> account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
>>>> If that's over then I guess I'm done.  I applied for this new vmdk thing
>>>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
>>>> it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
>>>
>>> I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
>>>
>>> Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining
>>> their own Perl port ?
>>
>> They are not maintaining their own port.
>>
> 
> So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
> base installation.
> 
>> [...]
> Given the above, you should not have to apply to continue getting free
> access to VMS systems, and you certainly should not have to go through
> this pre-built system only setup.
> 
> IMHO, the fact VSI have not already contacted you and arranged for your
> continued free access to VMS systems, and based on the current setup, is
> a major mistake on the part of VSI.
> 
> Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
> to apply for anything. :-(
> 
> I hope one of the VSI employees reading comp.os.vms are already having
> a quiet word with the people responsible for this to get this situation
> fixed quickly.
> 
> I would also recommend VSI review all the other open source software they
> make available which is maintained by non-VSI people and arrange for those
> people to have immediate continued access with the minimum of fuss and
> change required.
> 
> If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
> It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.

+1