While there is a lot of unease at the requirement to pay for a licence
on an ongoing annual basis, it seems the _real_ problem is that customers
could go bust (or at least be badly hurt) if the supply of VSI licences
suddenly stops.

As such I have another idea:

VSI doesn't issue the customer licences, HPE does (for a fee for each
licence, which allows HPE to make a small profit on each licence).
If HPE doesn't want this role, even though they will profit from it,
there should be other large companies able to take on this role.

The main problem is the worry that the company issuing the licences may
go bust and VSI is probably a lot smaller than most of the customers
still using VMS, so this concern is massively amplified.

With a company the size of HPE issuing the licences, this concern is
massively reduced because HPE is too large (hopefully!) to suddenly stop
operating overnight without any successor company.

Under a formal contract arrangement with VSI, HPE would be notified when
VSI had acquired a new customer and HPE would then be responsible for
collecting payment from the customer on an ongoing basis and for passing
it, minus HPE's fee, to VSI. HPE, not VSI, would issue licences to the
customer as required.

This HPE-VSI contract would state that this arrangement has a long notice
period (5-10 years) so, if either the successor to VSI or HPE themselves
wanted to cancel it, the arrangement could not just be terminated at short
notice.

You would still need guarantees within the contract to guard against the
500% annual increase problem, but this should be more acceptable to VSI
and their creditors than the escrow option might be.

No VMS specific knowledge would be required within HPE (other than the
ability to generate a VMS licence on demand) so this would be purely a
contract management and licence distribution arrangement no different
to the contracts that HPE currently manage for its own customers.

This means that if VSI goes bust, then customers would still get
their licences from HPE for a minimum of 5-10 years and there would
be no interruption in the supply of new licences to VSI's customers
regardless of what happens to VSI.

VSI's creditors would still see income from licences and so would
any successor organisation to VSI.

I would suggest the customer's annual licence payment is in two parts:
About 20% for the right to continue running their current VMS version
for the contract period without any support and about 80% for full
support from VSI or any successor company.

When there's a support organisation in place (either VSI or another
company) the customer is required to pay the full 100% via HPE each year.
If VSI fails and there is no replacement company, but only creditors,
the customer is only required to pay the 20% each year.

That way, the customer still gets their annual licence without having
to pay for the support services they are not receiving and the VSI
creditors still get something from the VSI customers on an ongoing basis.

Comments ? Suggested improvements ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/27/21 2:39 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> While there is a lot of unease at the requirement to pay for a licence
> on an ongoing annual basis, it seems the _real_ problem is that customers
> could go bust (or at least be badly hurt) if the supply of VSI licences
> suddenly stops.
>
> As such I have another idea:
>
> VSI doesn't issue the customer licences, HPE does (for a fee for each
> licence, which allows HPE to make a small profit on each licence).
> If HPE doesn't want this role, even though they will profit from it,
> there should be other large companies able to take on this role.
>
> The main problem is the worry that the company issuing the licences may
> go bust and VSI is probably a lot smaller than most of the customers
> still using VMS, so this concern is massively amplified.
>
> With a company the size of HPE issuing the licences, this concern is
> massively reduced because HPE is too large (hopefully!) to suddenly stop
> operating overnight without any successor company.
>
> Under a formal contract arrangement with VSI, HPE would be notified when
> VSI had acquired a new customer and HPE would then be responsible for
> collecting payment from the customer on an ongoing basis and for passing
> it, minus HPE's fee, to VSI. HPE, not VSI, would issue licences to the
> customer as required.
>
> This HPE-VSI contract would state that this arrangement has a long notice
> period (5-10 years) so, if either the successor to VSI or HPE themselves
> wanted to cancel it, the arrangement could not just be terminated at short
> notice.
>
> You would still need guarantees within the contract to guard against the
> 500% annual increase problem, but this should be more acceptable to VSI
> and their creditors than the escrow option might be.
>
> No VMS specific knowledge would be required within HPE (other than the
> ability to generate a VMS licence on demand) so this would be purely a
> contract management and licence distribution arrangement no different
> to the contracts that HPE currently manage for its own customers.
>
> This means that if VSI goes bust, then customers would still get
> their licences from HPE for a minimum of 5-10 years and there would
> be no interruption in the supply of new licences to VSI's customers
> regardless of what happens to VSI.
>
> VSI's creditors would still see income from licences and so would
> any successor organisation to VSI.
>
> I would suggest the customer's annual licence payment is in two parts:
> About 20% for the right to continue running their current VMS version
> for the contract period without any support and about 80% for full
> support from VSI or any successor company.
>
> When there's a support organisation in place (either VSI or another
> company) the customer is required to pay the full 100% via HPE each year.
> If VSI fails and there is no replacement company, but only creditors,
> the customer is only required to pay the 20% each year.
>
> That way, the customer still gets their annual licence without having
> to pay for the support services they are not receiving and the VSI
> creditors still get something from the VSI customers on an ongoing basis.
>
> Comments ? Suggested improvements ?
>

1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?

bill

On 2021-05-27, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.

This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
HPE already does for its own customers.

Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.

> 2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
>

That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
and licence management.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/28/2021 2:32 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-05-27, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
>
> This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
> HPE already does for its own customers.
>
> Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
>
>> 2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
>>
>
> That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
> and licence management.
>
> Simon.
>

If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
would not do the same to them again?

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

On 2021-05-28, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 5/28/2021 2:32 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2021-05-27, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
>>
>> This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
>> HPE already does for its own customers.
>>
>> Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
>>
>>> 2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
>>>
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
>> and licence management.
>>
>
> If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
> would not do the same to them again?
>

This is a contract issue, not a VMS support issue.

If you don't like HPE, VSI could always do this with another major
company that is unlikely to go outright bust, even if VSI does.

I have now offered two ideas and Arne has now offered his own idea
about how to fix this problem. I notice there has been no real comment
on the merits of my last idea.

Do you or anyone else have any comments on the ideas offered or do you
have any ideas of your own on this major problem for the VMS community ?

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 5/31/2021 9:03 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2021-05-28, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 5/28/2021 2:32 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2021-05-27, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. HPE has no interest whatsoever in VMS.
>>>
>>> This is pure contract and licence management, no different to what
>>> HPE already does for its own customers.
>>>
>>> Supporting customer VMS systems is not involved.
>>>
>>>> 2. How many current VMS users wold trust HPE?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That depends on what you mean by trust in the context of contract
>>> and licence management.
>>>
>>
>> If HP would throw VMS users under the bus, why might you think they
>> would not do the same to them again?
>>
>
> This is a contract issue, not a VMS support issue.
>
> If you don't like HPE, VSI could always do this with another major
> company that is unlikely to go outright bust, even if VSI does.
>
> I have now offered two ideas and Arne has now offered his own idea
> about how to fix this problem. I notice there has been no real comment
> on the merits of my last idea.
>
> Do you or anyone else have any comments on the ideas offered or do you
> have any ideas of your own on this major problem for the VMS community ?
>
> Simon.
>

My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.

KISS!

Now, as for the misguided fear that someone will "cheat". Any VMS users
(that use VSI's latest stuff) will want VSI to be there for them, with
new updates, bug fixes, and such, and will pay reasonable support fees.

As for those who will not purchase support, they most likely will still
be running on HP/Compaq/DEC license PAKs, and would never be a VSI
customer, so what's the loss? Really, what is the loss? Hard to lose
something you never had.

Responsible companies do not want to be software pirates. Too much
downside. Companies will, and do, review software to insure they are in
compliance with all license requirements.

One or more people at VSI are paranoid, and, it's going to bite them on
the ass, hard.

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

In article <s92qfa$7o3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.

How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.

On 5/31/2021 3:54 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s92qfa$7o3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>
> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
> Probably not.

When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.

> And what about other people offering support, openly or
> not, in return for money?

Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?

> Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
> needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
> support, whether commercial or not).

It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.

> But old systems which haven't been
> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>

Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?

Phillip, think before typing ...

Now, if it is desired for non-commercial users to contribute, then have
a special support plan for them. Cheap. No special help, just some
money for "support". (Support of VSI.)

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

In article <s93oe5$m7m$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
> >> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
> >> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
> >
> > How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
> > commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
> > Probably not.
>
> When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
> support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
> they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.

So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.

> > And what about other people offering support, openly or
> > not, in return for money?
>
> Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?

That is not all there is to support.

> > Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
> > needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
> > that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
> > among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
> > support, whether commercial or not).
>
> It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
> just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
> then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.

They why pay? If someone without support (a hobbyist, say) finds a
problem, then someone with support will request a patch, and all will
get it.

> > But old systems which haven't been
> > touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
> >
>
> Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?

Not now. But just like there are still VAX systems around, there might
be VSI systems which are frozen after a few years. Why continue to pay
for support?

On 6/1/2021 12:36 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s93oe5$m7m$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>>>> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
>>>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>>>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>>>
>>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
>>> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
>>> Probably not.
>>
>> When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
>> support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
>> they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
>
> So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
> installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.

Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.

>>> And what about other people offering support, openly or
>>> not, in return for money?
>>
>> Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
>
> That is not all there is to support.

That is new VMS versions and patches and such.

>>> Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
>>> needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
>>> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
>>> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
>>> support, whether commercial or not).
>>
>> It would be good for VSI to make all patches available to anyone. Not
>> just support customers. If you're going to make the OS free to use,
>> then why would you not do the same with patches? This ain't HP.
>
> They why pay? If someone without support (a hobbyist, say) finds a
> problem, then someone with support will request a patch, and all will
> get it.
>
>>> But old systems which haven't been
>>> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>>>
>>
>> Nor would they be running VSI software,would they?
>
> Not now. But just like there are still VAX systems around, there might
> be VSI systems which are frozen after a few years. Why continue to pay
> for support?
>

Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?

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

In article <s94fba$4cj$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
<davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> >>>> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
> >>>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
> >>>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
> >>>
> >>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
> >>> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
> >>> Probably not.
> >>
> >> When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
> >> support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
> >> they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
> >
> > So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
> > installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
>
> Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
> customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.

OK, but if there are no licenses (or everyone gets perpetual licenses
for free), media can be borrowed, patches are made available to
everyone, then it will be difficult to tell if a commercial customer is
running without support. How, legally, would commercial customers be
required to have support? You can't make it part of the license
agreement if there are no licenses.

> >>> And what about other people offering support, openly or
> >>> not, in return for money?
> >>
> >> Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
> >
> > That is not all there is to support.
>
> That is new VMS versions and patches and such.

Yes, but if media can be borrowed, patches are available to all, etc.,
then that is not a motivation to pay for support.

> Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
> requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?

I am not the topic. I am not a commercial customer. Presumably the
idea is that if VSI goes bust, then the agreement that commercial use
requires support is null and void.

On 6/1/2021 2:19 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s94fba$4cj$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>>>>>> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
>>>>>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>>>>>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
>>>>> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
>>>>> Probably not.
>>>>
>>>> When VSI would provide media, they would specify the requirements for
>>>> support. How does Red Hat do it? Number of systems is irrelevant. If
>>>> they use VSI software, then support would be required for commercial use.
>>>
>>> So, in contrast to the old days, it would be illegal to borrow media for
>>> installation? A change of paradigm. Also, how would you enforce it.
>>
>> Ya know, I didn't write that. I just suggested it as one way to inform
>> customers. Never wrote that media could not be shared.
>
> OK, but if there are no licenses (or everyone gets perpetual licenses
> for free), media can be borrowed, patches are made available to
> everyone, then it will be difficult to tell if a commercial customer is
> running without support. How, legally, would commercial customers be
> required to have support? You can't make it part of the license
> agreement if there are no licenses.

"No license PAK" is not the same as "no license" ...

>>>>> And what about other people offering support, openly or
>>>>> not, in return for money?
>>>>
>>>> Who else has the VMS source code to modify and patch?
>>>
>>> That is not all there is to support.
>>
>> That is new VMS versions and patches and such.
>
> Yes, but if media can be borrowed, patches are available to all, etc.,
> then that is not a motivation to pay for support.

The motivations to pay for support are:

1) honesty
2) support VSI
3) adhering to agreements you made
4) violating what you agreed to could incur penalties

>> Because it would be part of the agreement with VSI, commercial use
>> requires support. Or, don't you stick to your word?
>
> I am not the topic. I am not a commercial customer. Presumably the
> idea is that if VSI goes bust, then the agreement that commercial use
> requires support is null and void.
>

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

On 31/05/2021 21:54, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <s92qfa$7o3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>> My idea is the same as it's been for years. Do away with license PAKs,
>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>
> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
> Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
> not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
> needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
> support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>
I think all of that is too complicated.

Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.

Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.

This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly. This would allow customers to react and pay but not lose everything if they don't.

From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or too harsh. Who wants to switch to a system that will stop running if not paid again?

(This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)

Den 2021-06-02 kl. 09:23, skrev Andrew Brehm:
> On 31/05/2021 21:54, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <s92qfa$7o3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>
>>> My idea is the same as it's been for years.  Do away with license PAKs,
>>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>>
>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support?  Big
>> commercial users?  Sure.  Commercial users with one VMS system left?
>> Probably not.  And what about other people offering support, openly or
>> not, in return for money?  Could VSI prevent that?  Yes, someone who
>> needs important patches will pay for support.  But if you are relying on
>> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
>> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
>> support, whether commercial or not).  But old systems which haven't been
>> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>>
> I think all of that is too complicated.
>
> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use
> is system specs.
>
> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and
> up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
>
> This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will
> make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets
> to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only,
> keeping production system running but very slowly...

We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".

So no, I do not beleive in that solution.

In article <ihopv8Fh2cdU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
<andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:

> > How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
> > commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
> > Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
> > not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
> > needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
> > that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
> > among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
> > support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
> > touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
> >
> I think all of that is too complicated.
>
> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
> use is system specs.
>
> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
> and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.

I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
crunching in academia.

> This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
> will make serious customers pay.

Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
some non-commercial ones would.

> Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
> forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
> 8 GB only, keeping production system running.

Certainly not all production systems.

> From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI
> is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And
> new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or
> too harsh.

True, especially considering the competition. It doesn't matter what
the actual comparison is, what matters is what the bean-counters
perceive.

> (This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could
> run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe
> someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)

Indeed.

On 02/06/2021 10:08, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
> Den 2021-06-02 kl. 09:23, skrev Andrew Brehm:
>> On 31/05/2021 21:54, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>> In article <s92qfa$7o3$1@dont-email.me>, Dave Froble
>>> <davef@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> My idea is the same as it's been for years.  Do away with license PAKs,
>>>> allow anyone to run VMS, require support for any commercial use of VMS.
>>>> This would avoid all the issues about drop dead dates.
>>>
>>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support?  Big
>>> commercial users?  Sure.  Commercial users with one VMS system left?
>>> Probably not.  And what about other people offering support, openly or
>>> not, in return for money?  Could VSI prevent that?  Yes, someone who
>>> needs important patches will pay for support.  But if you are relying on
>>> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
>>> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
>>> support, whether commercial or not).  But old systems which haven't been
>>> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>>>
>> I think all of that is too complicated.
>>
>> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial use is system specs.
>>
>> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
>>
>> This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and will make serious customers pay. Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and 8 GB only, keeping production system running but very slowly...
>
> We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
> And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
> factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
>
> So no, I do not beleive in that solution.

I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1 core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.

Time is on this idea's side.

Of course a few commercial users would escape, but they would with every licensing system that does not enforce a stop of working systems if the licence becomes invalid. You have to compare this idea to the other ideas, not to a perfect world.

On 02/06/2021 10:41, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <ihopv8Fh2cdU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
> <andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:
>
>>> How would you actually check whether commercial users had support? Big
>>> commercial users? Sure. Commercial users with one VMS system left?
>>> Probably not. And what about other people offering support, openly or
>>> not, in return for money? Could VSI prevent that? Yes, someone who
>>> needs important patches will pay for support. But if you are relying on
>>> that, then you will have unpatched VMS support in the wild at least
>>> among non-commercial users (or, rather, all who don't want to pay for
>>> support, whether commercial or not). But old systems which haven't been
>>> touched for years or decades probably won't be patched anyway.
>>>
>> I think all of that is too complicated.
>>
>> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
>> use is system specs.
>>
>> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
>> and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
>
> I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
> with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
> think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
> crunching in academia.

As cores and RAM become cheaper, commercial applications limited to few cores will become a faint memory.

And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free if this is required.

>> This will allow everyone to use VMS for development and testing and
>> will make serious customers pay.
>
> Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
> some non-commercial ones would.

The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.

>> Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
>> forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
>> 8 GB only, keeping production system running.
>
> Certainly not all production systems.

Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.

>> From my point of view the second-most important requirement for VSI
>> is now after supporting existing customers gaining new customers. And
>> new customers simply cannot be gained if licensing is too complicated or
>> too harsh.
>
> True, especially considering the competition. It doesn't matter what
> the actual comparison is, what matters is what the bean-counters
> perceive.

The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?

What each costs over ten years won't matter if we don't even know yet if the project pans out or will be important. Once it is important, money is easily gotten.

>> (This would mean that customers requiring only small VMS systems could
>> run it for free. But how many of those are there and are they not maybe
>> someone VSI wants to be on-board and perhaps expand later?)
>
> Indeed.
>

Yes.

In article <ihp7m7FjjlnU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
<andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:

> > We have 1 core and 4 GB RAM, and the system is quite fast.
> > And I do not consider a system supporting production in the main
> > factory of a leading producer of forrest/garden equipment, as "small".
> >
> > So no, I do not beleive in that solution.
>
> I don't think there will be too many systems like that in the near
> future. As cores and memory become cheaper and cheaper, systems with 1
> core and 4 GB of RAM will become a faint memory.

Right, so according to your plan no system could run VMS without paying
for support.

In article <ihp7s1Fjmf6U1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
<andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:

> > I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
> > with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
> > think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
> > crunching in academia.

> And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
> justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
> if this is required.

No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
the academic market. It is a big mistake to think that there are only
hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
people, etc.

> > Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
> > some non-commercial ones would.
>
> The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes

So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
hobbyists, vanishes as well.

> and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.

Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
have to pay.

> >> Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
> >> forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
> >> 8 GB only, keeping production system running.
> >
> > Certainly not all production systems.
>
> Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
> better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.

You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
powerful than X".

> The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
> started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?

For new products. What about moving to a different platform?

On 2021-06-02, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm@telia.com> wrote:
>
> So no, I do not beleive in that solution.

I don't think it's going to be viable either.

Do you like or dislike any of the other proposed solutions Jan-Erik ?

Do you have any ideas of your own ?

This is something that should have been sorted out at the start 5 years
ago instead of just sprung on the community last year. VSI were seriously
wrong to suddenly change the ground rules in that way IMHO.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 6/2/2021 7:20 AM, Andrew Brehm wrote:
> On 02/06/2021 10:41, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article <ihopv8Fh2cdU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
>> <andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:
>>> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
>>> use is system specs.
>>>
>>> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
>>> and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
>>
>> I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
>> with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop.  And I can
>> think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
>> crunching in academia.
>
> As cores and RAM become cheaper, commercial applications limited to few
> cores will become a faint memory.

Even in the Linux x86-64 market then production VM's with 4 cores
and 8 GB RAM are not that uncommon. The VM may reside on a physical box
with more resources, but that is a different story - *nobody* likes
licensing of SW running in VM based on the total physical specs.

And it is even worse with VMS. Most production VMS systems are very
old and when they were created 4 CPU 8 GB RAM was a high end system.
And they still run fine on that. It is probably like 80-90% of
production VMS system that couldd run on that.

Sure if the VMS world start changing the 40 year old applications
to newer technologies then resource demand will go up. But that may
turn out to be a very slow process.

>>> Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
>>> forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
>>> 8 GB only, keeping production system running.
>>
>> Certainly not all production systems.
>
> Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be better
> than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.

If the pricing is that 4 core 8 GB is free and more cost money, then
I think you can expect those that pay to have an actual need for
more.

And lack of resources may not just limit throughput - it may mean
won't run.

Arne

On 6/2/21 7:26 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <ihp7s1Fjmf6U1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
> <andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:
>
>
>>> I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
>>> with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop. And I can
>>> think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
>>> crunching in academia.
>
>> And academic number crunching IS a commercial application and can
>> justify buying a licence. Why not? VSI could sell such licences for free
>> if this is required.
>
> No, it is not commercial. (It is not hobbyist use, at least in most
> cases, but definitely not commercial.) DEC and VMS used to be big in
> the academic market.

The key here is "used to be". Does anyone know of any academic use of
VMS today?

> It is a big mistake to think that there are only
> hobbyists and huge commercial users. In-between there are academic
> users, non-profit-organization users, small businesses, self-employed
> people, etc.
>
>>> Yes. But many commercial customers wouldn't have to pay anything and
>>> some non-commercial ones would.
>>
>> The first group will likely become smaller and smaller as time passes
>
> So with that the possibility of running VMS for free, e.g. for
> hobbyists, vanishes as well.

You mean like it did for the VAX? Welcome to reality.

>
>> and cores become cheaper. And the second group can always get a licence.
>
> Sure, but the whole point is that non-commercial customers shouldn't
> have to pay.

The only true non-commercial use is hobbyists. Non-profit,
Government use, Academic use are all just as commercial as a
bank, store or factory.

>
>>>> Likewise, if VSI goes away or someone
>>>> forgets to renew support, VMS would simply collapse to using 4 cores and
>>>> 8 GB only, keeping production system running.
>>>
>>> Certainly not all production systems.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but the majority or at least some. It would still be
>> better than a complete halt as dictated by the current process.
>
> You can't define a production system as "more powerful than X" then,
> when the license no longer works, limit the functionality to "less
> powerful than X".

We used to have a local pizza shop that ran everything from POS
to payroll and inventory on a MicroVAX II. Commercial does not
automatically mean big.

>
>> The actual comparison is the actual comparison when the project is
>> started? Do we use VMS or do we use Linux? What does each cost?
>
> For new products. What about moving to a different platform?
>

Isn't that what was implied by saying Linux?

bill

On 6/2/2021 8:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 6/2/21 7:26 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>   DEC and VMS used to be big in
>> the academic market.
>
> The key here is "used to be".  Does anyone know of any academic use of
> VMS today?

I don't.

Too bad.

VMS was very big in academics in Denmark back in 80's and early 90's.

Arne

On 6/2/2021 4:41 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <ihopv8Fh2cdU1@mid.individual.net>, Andrew Brehm
> <andrew@netneurotic.net> writes:
>> Perhaps the easiest distinction between commercial and non-commercial
>> use is system specs.
>>
>> Make OpenVMS freely available to everyone and let it use up to 4 cores
>> and up to 8 GB of RAM for free, then demand payment for more.
>
> I can think of many, many commercial applications which could get by
> with far fewer resources, say a webserver running a webshop.

Depends on the volume and the technology used.

A modern web shop with all the bells and whistles do use resources.

> And I can
> think of non-commercial use which needs more resources, such as number
> crunching in academia.

Number crunching has turned into Linux only.

Arne

On 6/2/21 8:59 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 8:54 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> On 6/2/21 7:26 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
>>>                                          DEC and VMS used to be big in
>>> the academic market.
>>
>> The key here is "used to be".  Does anyone know of any academic use of
>> VMS today?
>
> I don't.
>
> Too bad.
>
> VMS was very big in academics in Denmark back in 80's and early 90's.
>

In the US as well. I kept it in use in the CS department at my
University until long after academia had abandoned it but even
I knew it was a losing battle.

bill