• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Is This The End For VMS Hobbyists?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." --JFK

Substitute the following:

peaceful revolution -> licensed software

violent revolution -> pirated software
 
I think the biggest problem is that HP supposedly didn't pass on the rights to the VAX version to VSI, so they can't legally make any licenses, or new releases for VAXen. It's still with HP(E).

Short answer: They can if they want to, they just don't want to.

The TL;DR answer: A VSI employee has posted several times in response to various different questions referring to this in comp.os.vms. They acquired all the source files for OpenVMS VAX and they could create a VSI version if they wanted to, they just don't want to. It's assumed this is because they would have no customers and no financial reason to do that. Their license from HPE is worded such that they DO NOT have the rights to create licenses for HP versions of OpenVMS, but DO have the rights to make licenses for VSI versions of OpenVMS. So, if they ever did make a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX, they could sell and license it. But again, they won't, according to the previously mentioned employee. This might change if someone plops down a couple million dollars (estimated) and says make me a copy. At this point, though they have the sources, there was some thought that the sources are out of date and might take some work just to build that version (assumed to be V7.3 though work was done on V7.4 which became V8.x).

However, the page https://vmssoftware.com/about/roadmap/ makes you start wonder. There it claims that VSI now provides prior version support of VMS also for VAXen.

Weird... Anyone know anything about this?

This speaks to the fact that they do have the VAX sources and could to bug fixes. If you note the note at the bottom of the page says "PVS: Prior Version Support without Sustaining Engineering" - My emphasis. It means they could, if someone came to them and said "I found a bug and it's critical to my company to have it fixed. Here's a pile of money." Then VSI has the option of accepting and then using the sources it has to see if it can fix the bug for that customer. There is no ongoing engineering support like in OpenVMS Alpha, Integrity and (soon to be) x86.
 
Short answer: They can if they want to, they just don't want to.

Well, do you have any source for that claim? Because it has been very clearly stated at some places that they do not. It's not a question about having sources or not, but the lack of the legal right.
Unfortunately I cannot find references right now, but maybe someone else have such.

However, the VAX codebase is different from the Alpha/Itanium/x86-64 as well, which could be a technical problem.

But, with that announcement that they do provide support for VAX, it would seem as if they should have all the code needed to do the builds. And having the support should also mean they should have the legal right. Which is what got my curiosity going. But apart from that page, I have not seen any statement that contradicts the earlier statement that the VAX version was not included in the deal between HPE and VSI.
 
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/84UwD_jWVhU

In here, Robert A Brooks writes that VSI has VAX sources, but are not interested in making a VAX release.

VSI cannot make releases or issue Pair for HPE versions.

Thanks a lot. That does indeed clarify a couple of points that I haven't seen before (my feed of comp.os.vms dried up a few years ago, and I have not been trying to get it through Google).

So at least technically, VSI own the VAX code as well (and have it), and could in theory build a new version, release it, and then sell licenses for it. (That was news to me.)
And it appears that they are not able to issue licenses for any version built by HPE. (That I sort of had understood before.)

And obviously, VSI in general is not interested in working on getting a build for VAX done. It seems the latest announcements are that they will not even make 9.0 releases for Alpha or Itanium, even though that was previously in the plan. So they are really going fast for dropping work on anything non-x86-64.

Well, then we know where we stand, I guess.

VSI could do something, but it would require more work than they are willing to do.
HPE could issue a license, but it seems they are not willing to do that. And the last one they did had an expiration, which have now kicked in.

So we're stuck. :(
 
Ok, I am a bit confused about the VMS/VSI licensing issue.

The hobbyist license from HPE does not reference any particular release (like OpenVMS 7.3) but are listed as "Licenses below are for OpenVMS on VAX or Alpha" (quoted from below).

There is no version referenced (or checked as far as I can tell) in the license installation files. When I applied for the "last" HPE license I did not even tell HP what system or VMS version I was using.

So even if VSI did produce a brand spanking new VAX OpenVMS version, would their license not load on my poor old VLC box running OpenVMS 7.3?

If VSI did produce a new VAX OpenVMS version, could I ignore it and load the license on my current OpenVMS 7.3 installation?

Thoughts/ideas?

Don

Code:
$!     
$!                            HPE HOBBY LICENSE AGREEMENT
$!                                    For OpenVMS
$!     
$!                                          
$!     
$!     This document is the legal agreement governing your use of the Software.
$!     Please store it in a safe place.
$!     
$!     
$!                                   LICENSE TERMS
$!     
$!     1.	 GRANT
$!     
$!     	 Upon your qualification for this license and your signature on this
$!          form, Hewlett Packard Enterprise("HPE") will grant you the 
$!          right to use OpenVMS on a single computer ("Licensed 
$!          Computer").  Use of the Licensed Computer is ONLY FOR NON-COMMERCIAL
$!          USES (e.g., home use).  As such, you may not use the Licensed Computer 
$!          for any business purposes whatsoever, e.g., to develop applications 
$!          for resale, to do business accounting, etc.
$!     
$!     	 Your license will be granted upon the issuance of the license key.
$!          Your rights to use the software and the license key are LIMITED TO ONE 
$!          YEAR from date of issuance of the license key.
$!     
$!     	 You may copy the Software into the local memory or storage device of 
$!          the specified quantity of computers.  You may make a single archival
$!          or back-up copy of the Software.
$!     
$!     	 You may NOT transfer your rights to use the Software, the Software 
$!          itself and the accompanying documentation including this License
$!          Agreement.
$!     
$!     2.	 COPYRIGHT
$!     
$!     	 The Software is owned by HPE and its suppliers and is protected by 
$!          copyright laws and international treaties.  Your use of the Software
$!          and associated documentation is subject to the applicable copyright 
$!          laws and the express rights and restrictions of this License 
$!          Agreement.
$!     
$!     3.	 RESTRICTIONS
$!     
$!     	 You may not rent, lease, or otherwise transfer the Software except as 
$!          expressly authorized in this License Agreement.
$!     
$!     	 You may not remove any copyright, trademark or other proprietary 
$!          notices from the Software or the media.
$!     
$!     	 You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, 
$!          except to the extent HPE cannot prohibit such acts by law.
$!     
$!                           LIMITED WARRANTY AND LIABILITY
$!    
$!    LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: THE PRODUCTS AND PRODUCT INFORMATION FURNISHED 
$!    HEREUNDER ARE FURNISHED "AS IS".  HPE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES THAT MAY 
$!    BE IMPLIED ON THE PRODUCTS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL IMPLIED 
$!    WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT WILL HPE BE 
$!    LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING LOSS OF DATA OR USE, LOST
$!    PROFITS OR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, ARISING OUT OF OR IN 
$!    CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCTS, 
$!    WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT OR TORT INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE.
$! 
$!     	     
$!     
$!                              U.S. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS
$! 
$!     Consistent with FAR 12.211 and 12.212, Commercial Computer Software,
$!     Computer Software Documentation, and TEchnical Data for Commercial Items
$!     are licensed to the U.S. Government under vendor's standard commercial
$!     license.
$!     
$!     
$!                                       GENERAL
$! 
$!     You are responsible for compliance with all applicable export or re-export
$!     control laws and regulations if you export the Software.  This Agreement is
$!     governed by and is to be construed under the laws of the State of Texas.
$! 
$!     If you have any questions concerning this Agreement, please contact your
$!     local HPE sales office or email to 
$!     Office of OpenVMS Programs (OpenVMS.Programs@hpe.com)
$! 
$!     HPE and the HPE logo Registered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
$!     All other product names mentioned herein may be trademarks of their
$!     respective companies.
$!
$!     Copyright 2012 Hewlett-Packward Company
$!     
$!     
$!     Usage of this licenses consistutes agreement with all terms of this Hobbyist
$!     License Agreement
$! 
$! 
$! *************************************************************************
$!  Issued by the HPE LMF License Key Management Group*
$!      New England (New Hampshire) - USA
$!      Version 16.03.11.1228
$!      Licenses below are for OpenVMS on VAX or Alpha
$!  For the latest info on OpenVMS, goto http://www.hpe.com/info/openvms
$! 
$!  Note: A change has been made so that if an existing license exists with
$!        no termination/release date or a termination/release date greater
$!        than (or equal to) the termination/release in this file, the PAK 
$!        in this file will not be loaded.
$!        %X107880D3  %SHOW-I-NOLICMATCH, no licenses match search criteria
$!        %X107880CB  %SHOW-I-NOLICENSE, no licenses exist
$! *************************************************************************
$! 
$! PAKs(112) listed below include:
$!   ACMS, ACMS-REM, ACMS-RT, ACMSXP-DEV, ACMSXP-RT, ADA, ADA-PDO, ADAO-PDO, 
$!   ALLIN1-MAIL-DW-CLIENT, ALLIN1-MAIL-SERVER, ALLIN1-MAIL-SERVER-USER, 
$!   ALLIN1-MAIL-VT-CLIENT, ALLIN1-MAIL-VT-USER, ALLIN1-MAIL-WAN-SERVER, 
$!   AUDIOKIT-USER, AVAIL-MAN, BASIC, C, CMS, COBOL, CXX-V, DCE-APP-DEV, DCE-CDS, 
$!   DCE-SECURITY, DCPS-OPEN, DCPS-PLUS, DECDCS-SRV-VA, DECMIGRATE, DECRAM, 
$!   DECWRITE, DECWRITE-USER, DESKTOP-ACMS, DFG, DFS, DQS, DTM, DTR, 
$!   DTR-UI-JAPANESE, DVNETEND, DVNETEXT, DVNETRTG, DW-MOTIF, DW-MOTIF-UI-CESKY, 
$!   DW-MOTIF-UI-DEUTSCH, DW-MOTIF-UI-ESPANOL, DW-MOTIF-UI-FRANCAIS, 
$!   DW-MOTIF-UI-HANGUL, DW-MOTIF-UI-HANYU, DW-MOTIF-UI-HANZI, 
$!   DW-MOTIF-UI-HEBREW, DW-MOTIF-UI-ITALIANO, DW-MOTIF-UI-JAPANESE, 
$!   DW-MOTIF-UI-MAGYAR, DW-MOTIF-UI-POLSKI, DW-MOTIF-UI-RUSSKIJ, 
$!   DW-MOTIF-UI-SLOVENSKY, DW-MOTIF-UI-SVENSKA, DW-SNA-3270-TE-VMS, 
$!   EXT-MATH-LIB, EXT-MATH-LIB-RT, FMS, FMS-RT-UI-JAPANESE, FMS-UI-HANGUL, 
$!   FMS-UI-JAPANESE, FORMS, FORMS-RT, FORMS-RT-UI-HANGUL, FORMS-RT-UI-HANYU, 
$!   FORTRAN, GKS, GKS-RT, GKS-RT-UI-JAPANESE, GKS-UI-JAPANESE, GKS3D, GKS3D-RT, 
$!   LSE, MACRO64, MAILBUS-400-API, MAILBUS-400-MTA, MMOV-DV, MMOV-RT, MMS, 
$!   NOTES, OPENVMS-ALPHA, OPENVMS-ALPHA-USER, OPENVMS-HOBBYIST, OPS5, PASCAL, 
$!   PCA, PHIGS, PHIGS-RUNTIME, PHIGS-RUNTIME-UI-JAPAN, PHIGS-UI-JAPANESE, 
$!   RMSJNL, RTR-CL, RTR-SVR, SQL-DEV, SSU, UCX, UCX-IP-CLIENT, UCX-IP-NFS, 
$!   UCX-IP-RT, VAX-VMS, VAXCLUSTER, VAXSET, VMS-UI-JAPANESE, VMSCLUSTER, 
$!   VOLSHAD, X25, X25-CLIENT, X500-ADMIN-FACILITY, X500-DIRECTORY-SERVER
$!
 
Well, do you have any source for that claim? Because it has been very clearly stated at some places that they do not. It's not a question about having sources or not, but the lack of the legal right.
Unfortunately I cannot find references right now, but maybe someone else have such.

However, the VAX codebase is different from the Alpha/Itanium/x86-64 as well, which could be a technical problem.

But, with that announcement that they do provide support for VAX, it would seem as if they should have all the code needed to do the builds. And having the support should also mean they should have the legal right. Which is what got my curiosity going. But apart from that page, I have not seen any statement that contradicts the earlier statement that the VAX version was not included in the deal between HPE and VSI.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/84UwD_jWVhU

In here, Robert A Brooks writes that VSI has VAX sources, but are not interested in making a VAX release.

VSI cannot make releases or issue Pair for HPE versions.

Yep. That's the employee and that's one of several posts he has made in the many discussions about VAX OpenVMS Licensing that have come up in comp.os.vms since last May. If you go to the Google Groups version and search for his posts you will find a few.

Thanks a lot. That does indeed clarify a couple of points that I haven't seen before (my feed of comp.os.vms dried up a few years ago, and I have not been trying to get it through Google).

I get my Usenet through https://www.eternal-september.org It's free and mostly trouble free.

So at least technically, VSI own the VAX code as well (and have it), and could in theory build a new version, release it, and then sell licenses for it. (That was news to me.)

Yes, that was news to everyone not a VSI employee.

And it appears that they are not able to issue licenses for any version built by HPE. (That I sort of had understood before.)

Correct. Their license for OpenVMS includes the right to create licenses for any version they create, but none that HPE/HP/Compaq/DEC have created. Searching through comp.os.vms will find messages pertaining to that as well.

And obviously, VSI in general is not interested in working on getting a build for VAX done. It seems the latest announcements are that they will not even make 9.0 releases for Alpha or Itanium, even though that was previously in the plan. So they are really going fast for dropping work on anything non-x86-64.

I'm sure they see no money in updating VAX OpenVMS. The few places still running are happy with V7.3 or whatever version they are on. The fact that they are still on VAX implies that there may be no way to upgrade - meaning perhaps they have no source for their application either because they bought it and the vendor is out of business or perhaps it was home grown but the source is lost. Another possibility is an application which is use in some strictly regulated way and they don't want to put the effort and money into re-certifying a new app version and new platform.

Well, then we know where we stand, I guess.

VSI could do something, but it would require more work than they are willing to do.
HPE could issue a license, but it seems they are not willing to do that. And the last one they did had an expiration, which have now kicked in.

So we're stuck. :(

That's it. Unless someone plops a big pile of money at VSI's feet and says to make a new VAX version.

It would be nice if HPE could find it in it's corporate heart to make one final non-expiring set of Hobbyist PAK keys for the 100+ products. But I won't hold my breath.
 
Ok, I am a bit confused about the VMS/VSI licensing issue.

The hobbyist license from HPE does not reference any particular release (like OpenVMS 7.3) but are listed as "Licenses below are for OpenVMS on VAX or Alpha" (quoted from below).

There is no version referenced (or checked as far as I can tell) in the license installation files. When I applied for the "last" HPE license I did not even tell HP what system or VMS version I was using.

You are correct. You can use the supplied Hobbyist PAKS on any version of OpenVMS from V5.0 when the LMF was first created up to the latest in your platform, either V7.3 for VAX or 8.4 for Alpha. The Hobbyist PAKS do not care. A facility exists when the PAKS are generated to specify versions, but HPE did not for the Hobbyist PAKS.

So even if VSI did produce a brand spanking new VAX OpenVMS version, would their license not load on my poor old VLC box running OpenVMS 7.3?

Well, it would load but it would not activate the HP products.

If VSI did produce a new VAX OpenVMS version, could I ignore it and load the license on my current OpenVMS 7.3 installation?

Unfortunately not. What you're overlooking is that the the license PAK specifies a "PRODUCER". Whereas the HPE PAKS specify the PRODUCER as one of "DEC", "COMPAQ" or "HP", the VSI PAKs specify "VSI" as the PRODUCER and the HP/Compaq/DEC products look for that name in the PRODUCER field while the VSI products look for "VSI" as the PRODUCER. As such, they won't work on each other's products. HP PAKS don't work on VSI created versions and VSI PAKs don't work on DEC?Compaq/HP created versions. Nice, huh?

Now, you're perfectly welcome to run an HP/Compaq/DEC product (such as All-In-One for example) on a VSI version of OpenVMS as long as you:

1) Have an HP PAK for All-In-One that is still valid.
2) The code still runs without a problem on the new OpenVMS version.

Theoretically, you could run a VSI product (FORTRAN, for example) on your HP V8.4 OpenVMS as long as the VSI product doesn't use some feature of a newer OpenVMS and your PAK is still valid.

Thoughts/ideas?

Don
 
Last edited:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/84UwD_jWVhU

In here, Robert A Brooks writes that VSI has VAX sources, but are not interested in making a VAX release.

VSI cannot make releases or issue Pair for HPE versions.

For my own benefit, I searched back and found this remark by Mr. Brooks. And another reference to a post of Mr Brooks follows from Mr. Froble.

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/7WJWwWRcZUM/m/IS3IgV3OCQAJ

Robert A. Brooks said:
Nov 19, 2019, 6:43:09 PM
to
On 11/19/2019 9:52 AM, Hans Bachner wrote:

> And the probability that VSI will (be allowed to) issue licenses for
> DEC/CPQ/HP(E) versions of VMS is rather low imho.

The probability is exactly zero.

--
-- Rob

and here...

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/7WJWwWRcZUM/m/b4wLdxsjAAAJ

Robert A. Brooks said:
Nov 20, 2019, 8:59:27 PM
to
On 11/20/2019 9:31 PM, Dave Froble wrote:

> Perhaps HPe will turn over to VSI all VMS stuff they have, including the HP
> versions, which would include VAX and the hobbyist program.

We have the VAX sources, and could, if we wanted to, build
a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.

We are not going to do that.

Period. End of discussion.

--
-- Rob

and again here...

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/4zKQCCubHTU/m/nXQrwedzAQAJ

Robert A. Brooks said:
Jul 21, 2020, 8:33:03 PM
to
On 7/21/2020 7:51 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:

> HPE still owns VAX/VMS. VSI has no rights to VAX/VMS.

It's never pretty to see VSI-on-VSI violence, but I must disagree with my
esteemed colleague here.

Mike, we *do* have the rights (and the VAX master pack, including the
Emerald builds) to produce a VSI version of OpenVMS VAX.

We have chosen not to do that; we don't want Reagan to retire.

--
-- Rob

For those that don't know VMS history, John Reagan is the lead compiler writer/maintainer and has been for decades. The post that Mr. Brooks makes semi-humorous reference to is this:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.vms/c/4zKQCCubHTU/m/qw22adSKBgAJ

John Reagan said:
Jul 17, 2020, 12:35:34 PM
to
On Friday, July 17, 2020 at 12:41:58 PM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <9513122f-5615-4d7c...@googlegroups.com>,
> Alice Wyan <fin...@gmail.comwrites:
>
> > If I understand the situation correctly, HPE is completely dropping
> > support for VAX VMS, but the rights haven't been transferred to VSI.
> > This means starting next year VMS on the VAX is essentially abandoned.
>
> Right. I can understand VSI having little interest in it; it surely
> couldn't be justified financially.
>
> > If HPE is no longer going to be making money out of it, what would be
> > stopping them from selling it/give the rights away to, say, a hobbyist
> > collective that could be set up to preserve this system?
>
> Nothing, except that they figure that it is not worth their time.
>
> > I guess there'd be quite a legal mess of rights behind the old code,
> > but...
>
> I'm sure that they have a lot of experience with that, and the situation
> wouldn't be that much different than Alpha or Itanium.
>
> > would it be a doable thing?
>
> Certainly.
>

I have said several times, to several people, in several forums: The day you ask me to starting making VAX compilers again is the day we'll start planning my retirement party. I ain't got no time for that stuff. The thought of the VAX VCG and PL/1 (much of the VCG is written in PL/1) is a hard NO. I will use my safeword on that one.

I think those are the main ones I remember.
 
Back
Top