27 Nov
2025
27 Nov
'25
10:44 a.m.
Ok, started playing with the SIMH vax8600 simulator and OpenVMS 7.3
Hobbyist.
I know they discontinued the hobbyist license program years ago, but does
one actually need a license to run it? Or would an older version like 5.x
or something be better? The OpenVMS community license is only for Alpha,
Itanium and some x86_64 architectures so I'm sure that wouldn't work in a
simulated VAX?
- Peter
27 Nov
27 Nov
10:51 a.m.
V5 introduced the license manager so anything after VMS V4.7 usually required a license
PAK.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2025, at 08:45, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ok, started playing with the SIMH vax8600 simulator and OpenVMS 7.3
Hobbyist.
I know they discontinued the hobbyist license program years ago, but does
one actually need a license to run it? Or would an older version like 5.x
or something be better? The OpenVMS community license is only for Alpha,
Itanium and some x86_64 architectures so I'm sure that wouldn't work in a
simulated VAX?
- Peter
11:31 a.m.
Even VMS 4 has license requirements. They just aren't enforced so people
run it. The copyright hasn't run yet, though. Some people think it's ok,
others do not. Maybe it's fair use for research purposes, maybe not.
You can buy a PAK of ebay, or find bootleg PAKs online. That will let you
run the system. One can make a super weak case it's for education or
research purposes if the use is hobbiest in nature. Even that weak excuse
is out the window if you do anything commercial with it. Copyright law,
upon which licensing is based does have some exceptions, but they are quite
narrow and require competent legal advise to utilize. Especially since you
may be circumventing a protection device which has narrower exceptions than
plain fair use. The general consensus here and other dec related groups is
relying on such exceptions is too risky and it's morally wrong.
But it's rather akin to finding car keys and taking the car they fit for a
ride. Sure, the car's owner hasn't been by in a decade or more. But
ownership hasn't lapsed and you are driving soneone else's property. There
are exceptions here too: if you needed to move it to protect it, for
example, you could. But you couldn't drive it cross country to do that.
Again, the exceptions are quite narrow and require competent legal advice.
Also, this is at best a weak analogy.
So if you want to be completely legit, that's hard because you can't find
someone to take your money to transfer the license that backs the PAKs.
It's effectively abandonware. The law doesn't give you a pass on that.
Enforcement actions are always a risk if you go down this path. The works
are owned, and we even know who the owners are, so they don't qualify even
as orphan works. And that's not to mention the ethical aspect.
Warner
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 9:52 AM Wayne S via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
V5 introduced the license manager so anything after
VMS V4.7 usually
required a license PAK.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 27, 2025, at 08:45, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ok, started playing with the SIMH vax8600 simulator and OpenVMS 7.3
Hobbyist.
I know they discontinued the hobbyist license program years ago, but does
one actually need a license to run it? Or would an older version like 5.x
or something be better? The OpenVMS community license is only for Alpha,
Itanium and some x86_64 architectures so I'm sure that wouldn't work in a
simulated VAX?
- Peter
11:44 a.m.
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit and ethical way to run it as a
hobbyist. I have seen the PAKs on ebay and was pondering one.
I have no plans for doing anything remotely commercial on any of the
machines I have, and I am not planning a server farm either.
Just a single machine for my own educational/fun purpose. But I totally
understand what you are saying.
- Peter
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025 at 12:31 PM Warner Losh via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Even VMS 4 has license requirements. They just
aren't enforced so people
run it. The copyright hasn't run yet, though. Some people think it's ok,
others do not. Maybe it's fair use for research purposes, maybe not.
You can buy a PAK of ebay, or find bootleg PAKs online. That will let you
run the system. One can make a super weak case it's for education or
research purposes if the use is hobbiest in nature. Even that weak excuse
is out the window if you do anything commercial with it. Copyright law,
upon which licensing is based does have some exceptions, but they are quite
narrow and require competent legal advise to utilize. Especially since you
may be circumventing a protection device which has narrower exceptions than
plain fair use. The general consensus here and other dec related groups is
relying on such exceptions is too risky and it's morally wrong.
But it's rather akin to finding car keys and taking the car they fit for a
ride. Sure, the car's owner hasn't been by in a decade or more. But
ownership hasn't lapsed and you are driving soneone else's property. There
are exceptions here too: if you needed to move it to protect it, for
example, you could. But you couldn't drive it cross country to do that.
Again, the exceptions are quite narrow and require competent legal advice.
Also, this is at best a weak analogy.
So if you want to be completely legit, that's hard because you can't find
someone to take your money to transfer the license that backs the PAKs.
It's effectively abandonware. The law doesn't give you a pass on that.
Enforcement actions are always a risk if you go down this path. The works
are owned, and we even know who the owners are, so they don't qualify even
as orphan works. And that's not to mention the ethical aspect.
Warner
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 9:52 AM Wayne S via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
V5 introduced the license manager so anything
after VMS V4.7 usually
required a license PAK.
Sent from my iPhone
does
On Nov 27, 2025, at 08:45, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> Ok, started playing with the SIMH vax8600 simulator and OpenVMS 7.3
> Hobbyist.
> I know they discontinued the hobbyist license program years ago, but
> one actually need a license to run it? Or
would an older version like
5.x
> or something be better? The OpenVMS
community license is only for
Alpha,
> Itanium and some x86_64 architectures so
I'm sure that wouldn't work
in a
simulated
VAX?
- Peter
3:02 p.m.
On 11/27/2025 12:44 PM, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk wrote:
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit and
ethical way to run it as a
hobbyist. I have seen the PAKs on ebay and was pondering one.
I have no plans for doing anything remotely commercial on any of the
machines I have, and I am not planning a server farm either.
Just a single machine for my own educational/fun purpose. But I totally
understand what you are saying.
If you are willing to run it using a PAK you bought on eBay you would
be better off saving the money and just finding a copy of pakgen.c
and just making your own. To be honest, I seriously doubt the current
holder of the IP cares one way or the other. And as for commercial
use, what possible commercial use would there be for running anything
on a VAX.
bill
10:10 p.m.
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit and ethical way to run it as a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual license to run it on
that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such licenses.
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether it is *legal* to
run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it to stealing a car will not help
much in making up your own mind about such things.
— Chris
11:54 p.m.
On Thu, Nov 27, 2025, 10:28 PM Chris Hanson via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk
<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Yes. My analogy sucks, honestly.
Personally, I'm generally of the view people should make money off their
IP. But if they don't make it possible to pay, then it's more akin to
abandoned property after a while and ending sales means you don't want my
money when I use it.
There is an exception for copying books that are out of print. Libraries
can do that. While not spelled out in the exceptions, I tend to view
abandonware in a similar light: it should be ok to copy and use that out of
print software. Especially if you aren't using it for commercial gain.
Should be is a value judgement of what's fairest in general. It isn't a
legal value though... it would need to be litigated to know for sure and
it's the sort of thing that's hard to predict: would someone spend the
money to try to enforce something? If they don't is it worthless, so use
can't be theft since there is no value. Since it's unlikely to be
litigated, we won't know if this theory would hold true or the extent to
which it would apply. Rights are only rights to the extent they are
enforced or can be enforced at the end of the day. It's one thing to hope
you won't get caught when someone is showing an interest in enforcement,
but perhaps another if no one is. Or perhaps you owe obedience to that
right, regardless of what the current owners seem to think.
So i fell back on it's complicated, because it is and reasonable cases can
be made, etc. And I freely acknowledge this is just a personal view of
things and others may differ. I wish I'd selected a better analogy, though,
because as it was the implication of theft was rather more than I intended.
Warner
— Chris
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit and ethical way to run it as
a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual license
to run it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such licenses.
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether it
is *legal* to run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it to
stealing a car will not help much in making up your own mind about such
things.
28 Nov
28 Nov
1:32 a.m.
On 28/11/2025 04:10, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit
and ethical way to run it as a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual license to run
it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such licenses.
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether it is *legal* to
run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it to stealing a car will not help
much in making up your own mind about such things.
— Chris
I worked for DEC for 10 years. They were the best
company I ever worked for or with
They were altruistic, kind and generous. They loaned out hardware and
software all the time.
I am English and to an extent therefore somewhat can claim to have
an indpendant view.
Here I will make a non-detrimental comment.
The US is dollar driven and uses its laws for business advantage
when it can.
The most famous British judge Lord Denning always said.
"This is not a court of law but a place of justice, fairness and
truth"
DEC has (sadly) been gone for 25 years.
So running old VMS versions on old VAX systems for non-profit
personal interest should be fair use.
Rod Smallwood
2:25 a.m.
I too have watched this thread.
The choices if you are lucky enough to have the hardware, are
(1) Run the software - enjoy it - understand that its unlikely that the
ghost of DEC (Whatever that is) will pay any attention.
(2) Obey DECs commercial wishes and drill a 1/2"hole through the silicon in
each individual board on the backplane, and physically mail them one at a
time to the haters in this group to demonstrate that you have obeyed the
licencing laws explicitly.
Easy :-)
.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 18:38, Rod Smallwood via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 28/11/2025 04:10, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
license to run it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such
licenses.
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Ok, so there basically isn't a truly
legit and ethical way to run it
as a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether
it is *legal* to run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it
to stealing a car will not help much in making up your own mind about such
things.
— Chris
I worked for DEC for 10 years. They were the best
company I ever worked
for or with
They were altruistic, kind and generous. They
loaned out hardware and
software all the time.
I am English and to an extent therefore somewhat can claim to have
an indpendant view.
Here I will make a non-detrimental comment.
The US is dollar driven and uses its laws for business advantage
when it can.
The most famous British judge Lord Denning always said.
"This is not a court of law but a place of justice, fairness and
truth"
DEC has (sadly) been gone for 25 years.
So running old VMS versions on old VAX systems for non-profit
personal interest should be fair use.
Rod Smallwood
3:11 a.m.
HP was running Pa/risc into the 2017's for code analysis, I have a
goodwill 700. They sent me all the software, 12 CD's
I don't think anybody will get excited about VMS running on hobby gear.
Call HP, I think they will get a laugh.
Worked at HP for a couple years. Felt like old Tektronix.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 12:25 AM Doug Jackson via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
I too have watched this thread.
The choices if you are lucky enough to have the hardware, are
(1) Run the software - enjoy it - understand that its unlikely that the
ghost of DEC (Whatever that is) will pay any attention.
(2) Obey DECs commercial wishes and drill a 1/2"hole through the silicon in
each individual board on the backplane, and physically mail them one at a
time to the haters in this group to demonstrate that you have obeyed the
licencing laws explicitly.
Easy :-)
.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Fri, 28 Nov 2025 at 18:38, Rod Smallwood via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 28/11/2025 04:10, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
license to run it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling
such
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Ok, so there basically isn't a truly
legit and ethical way to run it
as a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual
licenses.
it
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether
it is *legal* to run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running
to stealing a car will not help much in making up
your own mind about
such
things.
— Chris
I worked for DEC for 10 years. They were the best
company I ever worked
for or with
They were altruistic, kind and generous. They
loaned out hardware and
software all the time.
I am English and to an extent therefore somewhat can claim to have
an indpendant view.
Here I will make a non-detrimental comment.
The US is dollar driven and uses its laws for business advantage
when it can.
The most famous British judge Lord Denning always said.
"This is not a court of law but a place of justice, fairness and
truth"
DEC has (sadly) been gone for 25 years.
So running old VMS versions on old VAX systems for non-profit
personal interest should be fair use.
Rod Smallwood
12:18 p.m.
On Nov 28, 2025, at 2:32 AM, Rod Smallwood via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 28/11/2025 04:10, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
Technically that is not accurate. While DEC is no longer a standalone company, its
property still has an owner, but nowadays that's either VSI, HP, or XX2247 depending
on which parts you're talking about.
paul
On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via
cctalk<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
Ok, so there basically isn't a truly legit
and ethical way to run it as a
hobbyist.
There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual
license to run it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such licenses.
Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether it is *legal* to
run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it to stealing a car will not help
much in making up your own mind about such things.
— Chris I worked for DEC for 10 years. They were the best
company I ever worked for or with
They were altruistic, kind and generous. They loaned out hardware and software all the
time.
I am English and to an extent therefore somewhat can claim to have an indpendant
view.
Here I will make a non-detrimental comment.
The US is dollar driven and uses its laws for business advantage when it can.
The most famous British judge Lord Denning always said.
"This is not a court of law but a place of justice, fairness and truth"
DEC has (sadly) been gone for 25 years.
2:26 p.m.
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad sad shell compared to what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Sat, 29 Nov 2025 at 05:18, Paul Koning via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
for or with
On Nov 28, 2025, at 2:32 AM, Rod Smallwood via
cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 28/11/2025 04:10, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk<
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>> Ok, so there basically isn't a truly
legit and ethical way to run it
as a
>> hobbyist.
> There is not a legal way to run it unless you acquired a perpetual
license to run it on that system before DEC/Compaq/HP stopped selling such
licenses.
>
> Whether it is *moral* or *ethical* to run it is independent of whether
it is *legal* to run it, and a poor analogy such as one likening running it
to stealing a car will not help much in making up your own mind about such
things.
— Chris
> I worked for DEC for 10 years. They were the best company I ever worked
> They were altruistic, kind and generous.
They loaned out hardware and
software all the time.
I am English and to an extent therefore somewhat can claim to have
an indpendant view.
Here I will make a non-detrimental comment.
The US is dollar driven and uses its laws for business advantage when
it can.
The most famous British judge Lord Denning always said.
"This is not a court of law but a place of justice, fairness and
truth"
DEC has (sadly) been gone for 25 years.
Technically that is not accurate. While DEC is no longer a standalone
company, its property still has an owner, but nowadays that's either VSI,
HP, or XX2247 depending on which parts you're talking about.
paul
2:49 p.m.
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson via cctalk wrote:
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad sad
shell compared to what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
It is owned by VMS Software Inc (VSI). (https://vmssoftware.com/)
It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to free old VAX versions of the VMS
software.
They apparently are doing well enough to be a viable company supporting existing VMS
installations.
They still even have Itanic & Alpha licenses available.
As well as Community Edition licenses, although those are only available on x86 now.
3:20 p.m.
Ahhh,
A business built on supporting ancient, unobtainable hardware, hoping that
their clients will transition to x86.
Big companies are very slow to transition sometimes because the cost of
developing applications is too high.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Sat, 29 Nov 2025 at 07:55, Doug McIntyre via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson
via cctalk wrote:
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad
sad shell compared to
what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
It is owned by VMS Software Inc (VSI). (https://vmssoftware.com/)
It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to free old VAX versions
of the VMS software.
They apparently are doing well enough to be a viable company supporting
existing VMS installations.
They still even have Itanic & Alpha licenses available.
As well as Community Edition licenses, although those are only available
on x86 now.
3:20 p.m.
On 29/11/2025 09:49, Doug McIntyre via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson
via cctalk wrote:
I'm not so sure VSI holds the copyright - I think that's still with HPE.
VSI just has the right to develop new releases and issue licenses for
those alone. Last I heard they're not allowed to issue licenses for any
releases produced by DEC/Compaq/HP which is why they're not selling VAX
licenses - they'd have to produce a new VSI-branded OpenVMS VAX release
in order to do that and it likely isn't worth the effort.
As for the VSI Community Edition - that effectively doesn't exist now.
All they're doing is what used to be called the Student Kit - a Virtual
Machine with some preinstalled licenses and software which expires one
year after it was issued. You don't get to choose what to install, or
install anything extra. No updates, no separate license you can apply to
your existing VM to keep it going, just start over from scratch every year.
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad
sad shell compared to what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
It is owned by VMS Software Inc (VSI). (https://vmssoftware.com/)
It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to free old VAX versions of the VMS
software.
They apparently are doing well enough to be a viable company supporting existing VMS
installations.
They still even have Itanic & Alpha licenses available.
As well as Community Edition licenses, although those are only available on x86 now.
5:02 p.m.
On 11/28/2025 3:20 PM, David Goodwin via cctalk wrote:
This is correct. HPE still owns the copyright on OpenVMS (all versions except x86_64 -
I'm not sure how that is handled since only VSI wrote it). VSI has all the sources
for all versions - VAX/Alpha/Itanium from HPE. They are allowed to publish updated
versions of any platform version, but choose not to for VAX because they don't see a
viable business reason - i.e. they won't make money off of it. Even doing the minimum
to get a new VAX version would cost more in expenses that they feel they can make back
through sales.
On 29/11/2025 09:49, Doug McIntyre via cctalk wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson via cctalk wrote:
>> And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad sad shell compared to what
>> they were.
>>
>> Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
>> asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
I heard rumors of
such an effort going on for HPE OpenVMS VAX but I don't know what the progress is or
if it's still ongoing.
> It is owned by VMS Software Inc (VSI).
(https://vmssoftware.com/)
No, VMS Software has a license from HPE, they do not own
the copyrights to OpenVMS.
It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to free old VAX versions of the VMS
software.
They apparently are doing well enough to be a viable company supporting existing VMS
installations.
They still even have Itanic & Alpha licenses available.
As well as Community Edition licenses, although those are only available on x86 now.
I'm not so sure VSI holds the copyright - I think that's still with HPE. VSI just
has the right to develop new releases and issue licenses for those alone. Last I heard they're not allowed to issue licenses
for any releases produced by DEC/Compaq/HP which is why they're not selling VAX
licenses - they'd have to produce a new VSI-branded OpenVMS VAX release in order to do
that and it likely isn't worth the effort.
Exactly.
As for the VSI Community Edition - that effectively doesn't exist now. All
they're doing is what used to be called the Student Kit - a Virtual Machine with some
preinstalled licenses and software which expires one year after it was issued. You
don't get to choose what to install, or install anything extra.
Yes and no. You can install things if you have the kits. So mostly 3rd party software.
But if you were speaking of VSI supplied products (other than Open Source), yes that is
correct.
No updates, no separate license you can apply to your
existing VM to keep it going, just start over from scratch every year.
Technically, yes. While it probably violates the CLP (Community License Program)
Agreement, there is nothing that prevents you from starting up the new CLP VM, exporting
the license PAKs from it and putting them on your currently running VM. The con to this
is that they you miss the updates that were applied since the previous year. At some
point that might not be too bad, but currently, with updates happening every month to
compilers and other layered product it's a pain.
The other thing you can do is keep the system disk as pristine as possible and add a
second virtual disk with everything that you want to keep going from year to year -
account homes, software repositories, etc. Then just moving that disk over to the new one
when needed. You lose any customizations of the system disk, but you could write DCL
programs to make those modifications so they are transferable.
--
John H. Reinhardt
3:26 p.m.
On 28/11/2025 20:49, Doug McIntyre via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson
via cctalk wrote:
I don't believe their agreement with HP allows them to do that. They
have to produce their own releases, but how many changes they would need
for it to be called a release I know not.
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad
sad shell compared to what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
It is owned by VMS
Software Inc (VSI). (https://vmssoftware.com/)
It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to free old VAX versions of the VMS
software.
They apparently are doing well enough to be a viable company supporting existing VMS
installations. They still even have Itanic & Alpha licenses
available.
but only to their updated versions...
As well as Community Edition licenses, although those
are only available on x86 now.
and really limited
Dave
7:22 p.m.
On 11/28/2025 3:49 PM, Doug McIntyre via cctalk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 07:26:38AM +1100, Doug Jackson
via cctalk wrote:
I don't think that is true. My understanding is they have a license
to do what they do but do not own any of it. Ownership remains with
some portions of HP.
bill
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad
sad shell compared to what
they were.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
It is owned by VMS Software Inc (VSI). (https://vmssoftware.com/) 
3:45 p.m.
> Technically that is not accurate. While DEC is no
longer a standalone
> company, its property still has an owner, but nowadays that's either VSI,
> HP, or XX2247 depending on which parts you're talking about.
On Sat, 29 Nov 2025, Doug Jackson via cctalk wrote:
And even HP is a farce of a company now - a sad sad
shell compared to what
they were.
They were once amazingly great; now they are like Kodak and Polaroid,
making more from licensing the trademark than from merchandise.
For example, my first Android (that I bought just to play with and learn
Android) was manufactured by or for Southwest Bell but doesn't have a
phone; and had a brand name of "Polaroid"!, although it didn't have a
camera either.
Who actually owns the software? Have we considered
going to them and
asking? It worked for CP/M - which is now unencumbered.
There were several reasons for that.
Gary Kildall was not as obsessively competitive as BillG
Gary was a helluva nice guy.
Blowing off the original IBM meeting may have been the stupidest business
move of all time, but it was also one of the BRAVEST, to stand up and
thumb your nose at therm!
Novell was having ongoing legal battles with Microsoft over what they
could or could not use in their software. When Novell bought Digital
Research, I THINK that the only asset that they wanted was the copyright
of CP/M; they sold off and/or gave away everything other than that, which
they weren't stingy about. They wanted rights to it, not necessarily even
exclusive. If Microsoft EVER did another copyright infringement legal
action, . . .
"OK, you are angry that we copied some user intaface stuff, etc. But, we
now own rights to what YOU copied it from."
It was a "Get out of jail free card" for any similarities to MS-DOS.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
12:25 a.m.
On 11/27/2025 10:44 AM, Peter Ekstrom via cctalk wrote:
Ok, started playing with the SIMH vax8600 simulator
and OpenVMS 7.3
Hobbyist.
I know they discontinued the hobbyist license program years ago, but does
one actually need a license to run it?
Without valid license PAKs, you have a very
limited system. You have one login session on the console device (OPA0:). I forget, but
you may also be limited to the SYSTEM account. But maybe not. The VAX/VMS layered
products are not available. VAXclustering is not available, Volume Shadowing is not
available, etc. Languages are not available except for MACRO-32 which comes with the base
install and BLISS-32 which comes from the FREEWARE repositories. Getting software loaded
that doesn't come on a SimH mountable image is a challange. There is no networking
software (DECnet requires a PAK) unless you can beg Hunter Goatley at Process to give you
a VAX Hobbyist license for Multinet (or TPUware). Editors available are EDT, TPU and
TECO-32.
Process:
https://www.process.com/resources/openvms/ - VMS library links
https://www.process.com/resources/openvms/hobbyist.html - Process Hobbyist link
BLISS-32
https://www.digiater.com/openvms/freeware/v70/bliss/
Or would an older version like 5.x
or something be better?
As others have mentioned anything from 5.0 and up will
require the PAK licenses. You can run V4.7 and earlier and everything will work - except
networking. DECnet required a special install tape - which is available online, I
believe. There are also some V4.x distributions set up which had the DECnet license
installed. There was no DEC TCP/IP (Called UCX - Unix Connector Exchange I think) product
yet. You have to get it from Wollengong (TGV) or other third party sources. That will
require some research but I don't think any of them are available currently.
I would stick with the Hobbyist V7.3 software until you get more experience with OpenVMS.
The OpenVMS community license is only for Alpha,
Itanium and some x86_64 architectures so I'm sure that wouldn't work in a
simulated VAX?
No. First of all because the VSI Community License only works on
VSI branded OpenVMS distributions. None of the VSI PAKs will work on any HP supplied
software. Second is that it is x86_64 only. To get Alpha or Itanium PAKS you have to
join the OpenVMS Ambassador's Program.
VSI Community Program:
https://vmssoftware.com/community/community-license/
VSI Ambassador's Program:
https://share.hsforms.com/131UO5x_iSEGxlYs8pQTYSQdi37l
- Peter
--
John H. Reinhardt
1
days inactive
2
days old
19 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Bill Gunshannon -
Chris Hanson -
David Goodwin -
David Wade -
Doug Jackson -
Doug McIntyre -
Fred Cisin -
Jim Davis -
John H. Reinhardt -
Paul Koning -
Peter Ekstrom -
Rod Smallwood -
Warner Losh -
Wayne S