[Info-vax] VSI OpenVMS Community License

[Dan Cross]

In article <l6mgf9Fd0sdU1 at mid.individual.net>,
bill  <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1 at dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1 at dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble  <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>
>>>> One would think!
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden?  Were they seeing any
>>>> return on it?  My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>
>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
>>> good thing for VMS.
>> 
>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>> things must be tempered by their costs.  Here, I suspect VSI was
>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>> path would have been superior.
>
>What cost are we talking about here?  If you mean the cost of
>taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
>why that could not have been fully automated.  It's not rocket
>science (anymore) people.

I agree, but I'm not privy to the issues inside of VSI that
lead up to this decision.  I still think it's a poor decision,
but I freely admit I'm not aware of the full context that went
into it.

	- Dan C.