28 Jul
2020
28 Jul
'20
7:03 a.m.
FYI...new VMS community license.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2n2RlNVtw
--
Lee Courtney
28 Jul
28 Jul
7:15 a.m.
Is that the right link? The video I saw was talking about setting up
failover in clusters.
Mike
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:04 AM Lee Courtney via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
FYI...new VMS community license.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2n2RlNVtw
--
Lee Courtney
7:17 a.m.
On 7/28/20 10:15 AM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote:
Is that the right link? The video I saw was talking
about setting up
failover in clusters.
Mike
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:04 AM Lee Courtney via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> FYI...new VMS community license.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2n2RlNVtw
Link worked for me. I have applied for my License.
bill
7:31 a.m.
This leaves those of us using VAX emulation high and dry, still. HP was
unwilling to let VSE offer VAX licenses. Are there any good free/cheap
Alpha emulations that are at least as functional as SIMH is for VAX stuff?
That may be the way forward, at least until the x86 version ships. Do any
of these newer things still run VAX binaries? There's a bunch of old games
like old-school VMS Moria and BOSS (a science fiction game in the
Rogue/Moria tradition) that I'd like to me able to keep playing.
Mike
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:17 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 7/28/20 10:15 AM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote:
Is that the right link? The video I saw was
talking about setting up
failover in clusters.
Mike
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:04 AM Lee Courtney via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> FYI...new VMS community license.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2n2RlNVtw
Link worked for me. I have applied for my License.
bill
9:01 a.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
This leaves those of us using VAX emulation high and dry, still. HP was
unwilling to let VSE offer VAX licenses. Are there any good free/cheap
Alpha emulations that are at least as functional as SIMH is for VAX stuff?
That may be the way forward, at least until the x86 version ships. Do any
of these newer things still run VAX binaries? There's a bunch of old games
like old-school VMS Moria and BOSS (a science fiction game in the
Rogue/Moria tradition) that I'd like to me able to keep playing.
Mike
Games are among the things that often don?t work on the Alpha. I?m most familiar with
trying to get DND running on Alpha. You can always try to VEST the VAX binaries (that
didn?t work with DND). I have other software that requires VAX.
Unless my memory is failing, this is also a problem for DECnet routing, isn?t that VAX
only?
I just applied for licenses, I?m curious to see what software is included, and if it opens
up a newer version of OpenVMS/Alpha than HP was offering. I?m also wondering if these
licenses will work with older versions of OpenVMS (required for older Alpha?s).
Zane
9:20 a.m.
On 7/28/20 12:01 PM, Zane Healy wrote:
On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I can answer this one.
Any license issued by VSI will be for a VSI version of VMS, therefore,
newer than anything from HPe.
VSI can not issue licenses for any HPe vresion of VMS so, no, these
licenses will not work for older versions of VMS.
bill
This leaves those of us using VAX emulation high and dry, still. HP was
unwilling to let VSE offer VAX licenses. Are there any good free/cheap
Alpha emulations that are at least as functional as SIMH is for VAX stuff?
That may be the way forward, at least until the x86 version ships. Do any
of these newer things still run VAX binaries? There's a bunch of old games
like old-school VMS Moria and BOSS (a science fiction game in the
Rogue/Moria tradition) that I'd like to me able to keep playing.
Mike
Games are among the things that often don?t work on the Alpha. I?m most familiar with
trying to get DND running on Alpha. You can always try to VEST the VAX binaries (that
didn?t work with DND). I have other software that requires VAX.
Unless my memory is failing, this is also a problem for DECnet routing, isn?t that VAX
only?
I just applied for licenses, I?m curious to see what software is included, and if it
opens up a newer version of OpenVMS/Alpha than HP was offering. I?m also wondering if
these licenses will work with older versions of OpenVMS (required for older Alpha?s).
9:35 a.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 7/28/20 12:01 PM, Zane Healy wrote:
Sadly that?s my assumption, if I?m right, it means I have one Alpha system that will be
capable of running what they make available, that?s my Compaq XP1000 (I have two, but only
one power supply). I?ve been planning to try and get one of my AlphaStation 200 4/233?s
back up and running as a workstation (small "low power? DECwindows, so good for my
office), but I?m pretty sure it won?t be supported.
Zane
I just applied for licenses, I?m curious to see
what software is included, and if it opens up a newer version of OpenVMS/Alpha than HP was
offering. I?m also wondering if these licenses will work with older versions of OpenVMS
(required for older Alpha?s).
I can answer this one.
Any license issued by VSI will be for a VSI version of VMS, therefore,
newer than anything from HPe.
VSI can not issue licenses for any HPe vresion of VMS so, no, these
licenses will not work for older versions of VMS.
bill 
9:39 a.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 6:35 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Jul 28, 2020, at 9:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at hotmail.com>
wrote:
Not supported, sure, but it will probably work just fine. When we released 8.4-2L1 I
tested it on DEC 3000 AXP and DEC 4000 AXP systems, and it ran fine on those.
Kind regards,
Camiel Vanderhoeven
?
VMS Software, Inc.
R&D Department
OpenVMS Kernel Engineer
www.vmssoftware.com
On 7/28/20 12:01 PM, Zane Healy wrote:
Sadly that?s my assumption, if I?m right, it means I have one Alpha system that will be
capable of running what they make available, that?s my Compaq XP1000 (I have two, but only
one power supply). I?ve been planning to try and get one of my AlphaStation 200 4/233?s
back up and running as a workstation (small "low power? DECwindows, so good for my
office), but I?m pretty sure it won?t be supported.
Zane I just applied for licenses, I?m curious to see
what software is included, and if it opens up a newer version of OpenVMS/Alpha than HP was
offering. I?m also wondering if these licenses will work with older versions of OpenVMS
(required for older Alpha?s).
I can answer this one.
Any license issued by VSI will be for a VSI version of VMS, therefore,
newer than anything from HPe.
VSI can not issue licenses for any HPe vresion of VMS so, no, these
licenses will not work for older versions of VMS.
bill 
1:54 p.m.
On 7/28/20 9:39 AM, Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctalk wrote:
Not supported, sure, but it will probably work just
fine. When we released 8.4-2L1 I tested it on DEC 3000 AXP and DEC 4000 AXP systems, and
it ran fine on those.
Kind regards,
Camiel Vanderhoeven
?
VMS Software, Inc.
R&D Department
OpenVMS Kernel Engineer
www.vmssoftware.com
Hi Camiel,
I'm curious how much memory your DEC 3000 has and if you found the
8.4-2L1 release was less of a memory hog than the latest 8.4 release
from HP. I have 192Mb in my DEC 3000 and while that
was more than
adequate for 8.3, once I moved to 8.4 I ended swapping to disk a lot
during seemingly mundane tasks.
Best,
Jason
10:47 a.m.
On 7/28/2020 11:20 AM, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
The question that will be answered when someone gets the VSI CLP PAKs is will those
PAKS work on an older version of OpenVMS?? The Hobbyist PAKs produced by Compaq and HP
have always worked on current and older versions.? Is there something in the License
Manager code that could limit it? The Hobbyist PAKS I have been getting for years all list
DEC as the Producer even through the Compaq and HP years.? I suppose VSI could have
engineered OpenVMS and/or the PAKS with VSI as the Producer which would probably limit
them to working on VSI versions of OpenVMS.
On 7/28/20 12:01 PM, Zane Healy wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:31 AM, Michael Kerpan via cctalk <cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
>>
>> This leaves those of us using VAX emulation high and dry, still. HP was
>> unwilling to let VSE offer VAX licenses. Are there any good free/cheap
>> Alpha emulations that are at least as functional as SIMH is for VAX stuff?
>> That may be the way forward, at least until the x86 version ships. Do any
>> of these newer things still run VAX binaries? There's a bunch of old games
>> like old-school VMS Moria and BOSS (a science fiction game in the
>> Rogue/Moria tradition) that I'd like to me able to keep playing.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Games are among the things that often don?t work on the Alpha. I?m most familiar with
trying to get DND running on Alpha.? You can always try to VEST the VAX binaries (that
didn?t work with DND).? I have other software that requires VAX.
>
> Unless my memory is failing, this is also a problem for DECnet routing, isn?t that
VAX only?
That's what has always been said.? But I thought I read somewhere
(maybe HECnet) that the Alpha/Integrity version could do some routing also.? I may have
misunderstood.
I just applied for licenses, I?m curious to see what software is included, and if it
opens up a newer version of OpenVMS/Alpha than HP was offering.? I?m also wondering if
these licenses will work with older versions of OpenVMS (required for older Alpha?s).
I can answer this one.
Any license issued by VSI will be for a VSI version of VMS, therefore,
newer than anything from HPe.
VSI can not issue licenses for any HPe vresion of VMS so, no, these
licenses will not work for older versions of VMS.
bill
--
John H. Reinhardt
11:11 a.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:47 PM, John H. Reinhardt via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
The question that will be answered when someone gets the VSI CLP PAKs is will those PAKS
work on an older version of OpenVMS? The Hobbyist PAKs produced by Compaq and HP have
always worked on current and older versions. Is there something in the License Manager
code that could limit it? The Hobbyist PAKS I have been getting for years all list DEC as
the Producer even through the Compaq and HP years. I suppose VSI could have engineered
OpenVMS and/or the PAKS with VSI as the Producer which would probably limit them to
working on VSI versions of OpenVMS.
No need to wait for that; I can answer that question right away; VSI's been selling
licenses for a while now. Yes, they have a different PRODUCER, so they will not work with
older (non-VSI) versions.
7:05 p.m.
On 7/28/2020 1:11 PM, Camiel Vanderhoeven wrote:
That's pretty much what I expected.? This also means that anyone wanting to run
OpenVMS AXP V1.x, 6.x, 7.x and 8.3 or 8.4 is dead in the water after Dec 31st 2020.? Not
sure why you would want to, but I'd wager there is always someone that would.
It also means that HPe *could* issue non-expiring PAKS with the DEC producer which would
not impinge on VSI's ability to create AXP, IA64 PAKS for profit.
--
John H. Reinhardt
On Jul 28,
2020, at 7:47 PM, John H. Reinhardt via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org
<mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>> wrote:
The question that will be answered when someone gets the VSI CLP PAKs is will those PAKS
work on an older version of OpenVMS?? The Hobbyist PAKs produced by Compaq and HP have
always worked on current and older versions.? Is there something in the License Manager
code that could limit it? The Hobbyist PAKS I have been getting for years all list DEC as
the Producer even through the Compaq and HP years.? I suppose VSI could have engineered
OpenVMS and/or the PAKS with VSI as the Producer which would probably limit them to
working on VSI versions of OpenVMS.
No need to wait for that; I can answer that question right away; VSI's been selling
licenses for a while now. Yes, they have a different PRODUCER, so they will not work with
older (non-VSI) versions. 
29 Jul
29 Jul
1:28 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 03:05, John H. Reinhardt via cctalk wrote:
That's pretty much what I expected.? This also means that anyone
wanting to run OpenVMS AXP V1.x, 6.x, 7.x and 8.3 or 8.4 is dead in
the water after Dec 31st 2020.? Not sure why you would want to, but
I'd wager there is always someone that would.
My VAXen (and Alphas) came with non-hobbyist licence PAKs (generally in
the database, not paper ones) and those will keep working for as long as
the hardware does.
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c
will work on all versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's frowned
on but it's not really different to running PDP-11 software is it (as
that is/was generally not licenced).
It also means that HPe *could* issue non-expiring PAKS
with the DEC
producer which would not impinge on VSI's ability to create AXP,
IA64
PAKS for profit.
Do the existing Alpha PAKs work on VSI's latest release? If a VSI
release recognises a PAK with PRODUCER=DEC then presumably that would be
a problem? Although since VSI are covering that same area with hobbyist
licences then that's really a non-issue. I suspect that HPe have other
fish to fry and whoever supported the hobbyist? before is no longer
there or no longer interested in doing so.
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
1:58 a.m.
Do the existing Alpha PAKs work on VSI's latest release? If a VSI release
recognises a PAK with PRODUCER=DEC then presumably that would be a
problem? Although since VSI are covering that same area with hobbyist
licences then that's really a non-issue. I suspect that HPe have other fish to
fry and whoever supported the hobbyist before is no longer there or no
longer interested in doing so.
I don't believe so. There was much wailing and nashing of teeth because folks had to
pay to get the VSI releases.
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
Dave
6:19 a.m.
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c will work on all
versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's frowned on but it's not really
different to running PDP-11 software is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed? What about the Mentec hobbyist license? That's pretty broad and
clear.
paul
6:29 a.m.
On 7/29/20 9:19 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
Sigh.... Here we go again.
This supposed Mentec Hobbyist License has been obsolete and invalid
for decades. It never covered use on real PDP-11 hardware. It was
only valid for one particular emulator which ceased to exist the
day Bob Supnik left DEC. It has floated around for ages and
apparently, still, no one has actually read it, but me!!
There was an attempt to get a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program from Mentec
many years later but it died on the vine and while they never
actually said why they decided not to do it, many of us had our
suspicions.
bill
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c will work on all
versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's frowned on but it's not really
different to running PDP-11 software is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed? What about the Mentec hobbyist license? That's pretty broad and
clear.
7:13 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 14:29, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
This supposed Mentec Hobbyist License has been obsolete and invalid
for decades.? It never covered use on real PDP-11 hardware.? It was
only valid for one particular emulator which ceased to exist the
day Bob Supnik left DEC.? I
I think that emulator definitely continued beyond the point at which Bob
Supnik left. You might be able to argue that it ceased to exist when DEC
ceased to exist, but usually the rights and obligations would simply
pass on to its successors (which probably means HPE ... which I think is
where we started). Any, all that matters is is Mentec's successors
interpretation.
t has floated around for ages and
apparently, still, no one has actually read it, but me!!
And me :-)
There was an attempt to get a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program from Mentec
many years later but it died on the vine and while they never
actually said why they decided not to do it, many of us had our
suspicions.
I'm curious. What suspicions?
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
7:29 a.m.
On 7/29/20 10:13 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
On 29/07/2020 14:29, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
As pointed out by a note "provided by Stuart Brook of Mentec" that
can be found on the Dbit web site there was work being done by Mentec
in late 1999 on a potential Hobbyist License for the Software they
somewhat controlled. At that time there were several very outspoken
members of the community who publicly stated that they didn't care,
one way or the other, whether Mentec made a Hobbyist License or not.
They would continue to use Mentec's IP as they wished.
Shortly thereafter all talk of a PDP-11 Hobbyist License from Mentec
came to an end.
bill
This supposed Mentec Hobbyist License has been obsolete and invalid
for decades.? It never covered use on real PDP-11 hardware.? It was
only valid for one particular emulator which ceased to exist the
day Bob Supnik left DEC.? I
I think that emulator definitely continued beyond the point at which Bob
Supnik left. You might be able to argue that it ceased to exist when DEC
ceased to exist, but usually the rights and obligations would simply
pass on to its successors (which probably means HPE ... which I think is
where we started). Any, all that matters is is Mentec's successors
interpretation.
t has floated around for ages and
apparently, still, no one has actually read it, but me!!
And me :-)
There was an attempt to get a PDP-11 Hobbyist Program from Mentec
many years later but it died on the vine and while they never
actually said why they decided not to do it, many of us had our
suspicions.
I'm curious. What suspicions?
11:05 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 15:29, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
As pointed out by a note "provided by Stuart Brook of Mentec" that
can be found on the Dbit web site there was work being done by Mentec
in late 1999 on a potential Hobbyist License for the Software they
somewhat controlled.? At that time there were several very outspoken
members of the community who publicly stated that they didn't care,
one way or the other, whether Mentec made a Hobbyist License or not.
They would continue to use Mentec's IP as they wished.
Shortly thereafter all talk of a PDP-11 Hobbyist License from Mentec
came to an end.
OK.
I remember the name Stuart Brook. I wonder if http://www.brook.ca/ might
be (or have been) his website.
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
7:07 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 14:19, Paul Koning wrote:
All I can find is one on the IA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021938/https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~made…
That covers SIMH rather than real HW (afaict). If there's another one,
that's good.
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c will work on all
versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's frowned on but it's not really
different to running PDP-11 software is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed? What about the Mentec hobbyist license? That's pretty broad and
clear.
paul
7:21 a.m.
On 7/29/20 10:07 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
On 29/07/2020 14:19, Paul Koning wrote:
All I can find is one on the IA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021938/https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~made…
That covers SIMH rather than real HW (afaict). If there's another one,
that's good.
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined. "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
This is plain English. One does not need to be a lawyer to see
what it actually says. They were very explicit in their wording.
bill
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c
will work on all versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's
frowned on but it's not really different to running PDP-11 software
is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed?? What about the
Mentec hobbyist license?? That's pretty
broad and clear.
????paul
7:27 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 15:21, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
On 7/29/20 10:07 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk
wrote:
So presumably you could continue to use an old version of SimH that was
"owned by Digital Equipment Corporation", under the terms of this
license grant. I don't see anything there about explicit termination.
Andrew
On 29/07/2020 14:19, Paul Koning wrote:
All I can find is one on the IA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021938/https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~made…
That covers SIMH rather than real HW (afaict). If there's another one,
that's good.
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined.? "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
This is plain English.? One does not need to be a lawyer to see
what it actually says.? They were very explicit in their wording. On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c
will work on all versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's
frowned on but it's not really different to running PDP-11 software
is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed?? What about the
Mentec hobbyist license?? That's pretty
broad and clear.
????paul
10:44 a.m.
On 7/29/20 10:27 AM, Andrew Back via cctalk wrote:
On 29/07/2020 15:21, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
Probably right. However, that version was rather primitive doing
only a small subset of PDP-11 processors. And, I expect it would
be rather difficult to actually find one of those versions today.
bill
On 7/29/20 10:07 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk
wrote:
So presumably you could continue to use an old version of SimH that was
"owned by Digital Equipment Corporation", under the terms of this
license grant. I don't see anything there about explicit termination.
On 29/07/2020 14:19, Paul Koning wrote:
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined.? "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
This is plain English.? One does not need to be a lawyer to see
what it actually says.? They were very explicit in their wording.
> On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk
> <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
> ...
> For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c
> will work on all versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's
> frowned on but it's not really different to running PDP-11 software
> is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed?? What about the Mentec hobbyist license?? That's pretty
broad and clear.
????paul
All I can find is one on the IA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021938/https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~made…
That covers SIMH rather than real HW (afaict). If there's another one,
that's good.
7:31 a.m.
In practical terms, I suspect that running VMS on a VAX (real or emulated)
will end up a lot like running DEC's PDP-11 software. Not technically
legal, but also not a practical problem, because the people who own the
rights simply don't care and aren't going to waste their time and resources
hunting down a bunch of nerds running obsolete software on ancient hardware
or some simulation thereof. If they DID decide that they cared, they'd be
within their right to go nuclear, but the odds of that happening are
exceedingly low.
Mike
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 10:21 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 7/29/20 10:07 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk
wrote:
On 29/07/2020 14:19, Paul Koning wrote:
All I can find is one on the IA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110629021938/https://www.eecis.udel.edu/~made…
On Jul 29, 2020, at 4:28 AM, Antonio Carlini via
cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
...
For those of you with hobbyist licence PAKs, I presume that pakgen.c
will work on all versions that VSI doesn't support. I know it's
frowned on but it's not really different to running PDP-11 software
is it (as that is/was generally not licenced).
Not licensed? What about the
Mentec hobbyist license? That's pretty
broad and clear.
paul
That covers SIMH rather than real HW (afaict). If there's another one,
that's good.
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined. "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
This is plain English. One does not need to be a lawyer to see
what it actually says. They were very explicit in their wording.
bill
7:37 a.m.
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote:
or some simulation thereof. If they DID decide that
they cared, they'd be
within their right to go nuclear, but the odds of that happening are
exceedingly low.
The bad PR they'd attract by running down a bunch of poor hobbyists
wouldn't be worth the blowback I think.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
7:42 a.m.
The current rights holders of VMS seem to be going in the right direction with
Hobby freebies and reasonable friendly access to the OS.. I guess they had
Better curate the local VMS gurus as there are not a lot of them left on the planet.
:)
openVMS forever.. can?t wait for a dell cluster of VMS machines :)
Weird world.
On 29 Jul 2020, at 16:37, geneb via cctalk <cctalk
at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote:
or some simulation thereof. If they DID decide
that they cared, they'd be
within their right to go nuclear, but the odds of that happening are
exceedingly low.
The bad PR they'd attract by running down a bunch of poor hobbyists wouldn't be
worth the blowback I think.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
7:50 a.m.
On 7/29/20 10:37 AM, geneb via cctalk wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Michael Kerpan via cctalk wrote:
Bad PR for who? A bunch of Hobbyists? Cash paying customers and
potential cash paying customers would probably never know or care.
bill
or some simulation thereof. If they DID decide
that they cared, they'd be
within their right to go nuclear, but the odds of that happening are
exceedingly low.
The bad PR they'd attract by running down a bunch of poor hobbyists
wouldn't be worth the blowback I think.
11:01 a.m.
On 29/07/2020 15:21, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote:
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined.? "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
Why? I can't find (after several minutes of searching) exactly what
happened when Bob Supnik left DEC.
Did DEC give him the software or did DEC release it under the "modified
X-Windows " licence? If the latter,
then DEC continued to own it and the PDP-11 release continue to be legal
to run under SIMH.
This is plain English.? One does not need to be a
lawyer to see
what it actually says.? They were very explicit in their wording.
One *always* needs a lawyer! They were clear, although they don't seem
to have said *which* DEC-owned emulator.
I just don't see that you can immediately dismiss the possibility that
DEC still owned the software.
DEC certainly permissively licensed other code. The OpenVMS BLISS
compiler was released on the Freeware CD, but I bet DEC still thought
they owned it.
Antonio
--
Antonio Carlini
antonio at acarlini.com
11:27 a.m.
On 7/29/20 2:01 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
You were free to use any. As it turns out, there was only one.
On 29/07/2020 15:21, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
DEC gave it to Bob Supnik as he had been the one who created it,
developed it and maintained it. I don't believe they ever had any
interest in it and it was only theirs because Bob had done it
while in their employ. When he left they had no interest in it
and let him take it with him. A quick glance at the source will
show no DEC Copyrights and Bob's from 1993 onward.
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined.? "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
Why? I can't find (after several minutes of searching) exactly what
happened when Bob Supnik left DEC.
Did DEC give him the software or did DEC release it under the "modified
X-Windows " licence? If the latter,
then DEC continued to own it and the PDP-11 release continue to be legal
to run under SIMH. This is plain English.? One does not need to be a
lawyer to see
what it actually says.? They were very explicit in their wording.
One *always* needs a lawyer! They were clear, although they don't seem
to have said *which* DEC-owned emulator.
I just don't see that you can immediately dismiss the possibility that
DEC still owned the software.
That question was asked and answered decades ago. Might be able to
still find something on the web, but the notion that the web keeps
things around forever is facetious at best.
DEC certainly permissively licensed other code. The OpenVMS BLISS
compiler was released on the Freeware CD, but I bet DEC still thought
they owned it.
The history of SIMH has never been in question. Except by people
trying to rationalize using DEC's (and later Mentec's) IP without
permission. Some things never change.
bill
1:22 p.m.
I am not sure I understand your "as it turns out there was only one" Bill.
Am I correct in assuming you are talking about DEC owned, and meaning
that Bob Supnik one?
John Wilson's Ersatz 11, aka E11, was and is a great functioning
emulator, but not owned by DEC.
Not arguing, just making sure I understand your statement
thanks
bob
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:27 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 7/29/20 2:01 PM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote:
You were free to use any. As it turns out, there was only one.
On 29/07/2020 15:21, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
wrote:
DEC gave it to Bob Supnik as he had been the one who created it,
developed it and maintained it. I don't believe they ever had any
interest in it and it was only theirs because Bob had done it
while in their employ. When he left they had no interest in it
and let him take it with him. A quick glance at the source will
show no DEC Copyrights and Bob's from 1993 onward.
It also only covered SIMH until Bob Supnik left DEC.
"MENTEC grants to CUSTOMER a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license under MENTEC's INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS to use and copy
the SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY solely for personal, non-commercial uses in
conjunction with the EMULATOR."
Note that EMULATOR is highlighted with capitalization.
" EMULATOR shall mean software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation
that emulates the operation of a PDP-11 processor and allows PDP-11
programs and operating systems to run on non-PDP-11 systems. "
Here it is defined. "owned by Digital Equipment Corporation".
That condition ceased to exist when Bob left DEC and DEC allowed
him to take SIMH with him.
Why? I can't find (after several minutes of searching) exactly what
happened when Bob Supnik left DEC.
Did DEC give him the software or did DEC release it under the "modified
X-Windows " licence? If the latter,
then DEC continued to own it and the PDP-11 release continue to be legal
to run under SIMH. This is plain English. One does not need to be a
lawyer to see
what it actually says. They were very explicit in their wording.
One *always* needs a lawyer! They were clear, although they don't seem
to have said *which* DEC-owned emulator.
I just don't see that you can immediately dismiss the possibility that
DEC still owned the software.
That question was asked and answered decades ago. Might be able to
still find something on the web, but the notion that the web keeps
things around forever is facetious at best.
DEC certainly permissively licensed other code. The OpenVMS BLISS
compiler was released on the Freeware CD, but I bet DEC still thought
they owned it.
The history of SIMH has never been in question. Except by people
trying to rationalize using DEC's (and later Mentec's) IP without
permission. Some things never change.
bill
2 p.m.
On 7/29/20 4:22 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
I am not sure I understand your "as it turns out
there was only one" Bill.
Am I correct in assuming you are talking about DEC owned, and meaning
that Bob Supnik one?
John Wilson's Ersatz 11, aka E11, was and is a great functioning
emulator, but not owned by DEC.
We were discussing the Mentec Hobbyist License. It never covered
E11 or anything other than the Supnik Emulator when he was a DEC
employee and DEC actually owned the IP.
Not arguing, just making sure I understand your
statement
thanks
bob
bill
5:20 p.m.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:00 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 7/29/20 4:22 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
How much of the IP does DEC need to own (the license is unclear on this
point)? Unless they conveyed the Copyrights to Supnik in writing (which is
possible), they (well their successors in interest) still have an ownership
interest in the emulator. One could make a case that the wording of the
license is imprecise enough (it didn't exclude successors in interest, for
example). Though finding out would require litigation, which is an
expensive game... and is apparently against the wishes of Mentec, at least
as expressed privately over the years...
The problem with the license being that it's written in a bit too plain
language which makes it a bit ambiguous once DEC was sold to Compaq and
then to HP since they are a successor interest for many other things...
Warner
I am not sure I understand your "as it turns
out there was only one"
Bill.
Am I correct in assuming you are talking about
DEC owned, and meaning
that Bob Supnik one?
John Wilson's Ersatz 11, aka E11, was and is a great functioning
emulator, but not owned by DEC.
We were discussing the Mentec Hobbyist License. It never covered
E11 or anything other than the Supnik Emulator when he was a DEC
employee and DEC actually owned the IP.
Not arguing,
just making sure I understand your statement
thanks
bob
bill
5:46 p.m.
On Jul 29, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Warner Losh via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
How much of the IP does DEC need to own (the license is unclear on this
point)? Unless they conveyed the Copyrights to Supnik in writing (which is
possible),
I would assume that's the case, given the notices that appear in the current text (and
the somewhat different ones in early editions). I know Bob to be careful about such
things.
they (well their successors in interest) still have an
ownership
interest in the emulator. One could make a case that the wording of the
license is imprecise enough (it didn't exclude successors in interest, for
example). Though finding out would require litigation, which is an
expensive game... and is apparently against the wishes of Mentec, at least
as expressed privately over the years...
At this point the interested party would be XX2247 LLC, I suppose.
paul
30 Jul
30 Jul
8:06 a.m.
On 7/29/20 8:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:00 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org <mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>> wrote:
On 7/29/20 4:22 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
This has been done to death years ago. DEC gave up all ownership of
what is now known as SIMH. Look at the sources. There are no DEC
Copyrights. There are Bob Supnik Copyrights from 1993 forward.
I am not sure I understand your "as it turns
out there was only
one" Bill.
Am I correct in assuming you are talking about
DEC owned, and meaning
that Bob Supnik one?
John Wilson's Ersatz 11, aka E11, was and is a great functioning
emulator, but not owned by DEC.
We were discussing the Mentec Hobbyist License.? It never covered
E11 or anything other than the Supnik Emulator when he was a DEC
employee and DEC actually owned the IP.
How much of the IP does DEC need to own (the license is unclear on this
point)? Unless they conveyed the Copyrights to Supnik in writing (which
is possible), they (well their successors in interest) still have an
ownership interest in the emulator. One could make a
case that the
wording of the license is imprecise enough
The wording is only imprecise to those who do not wish to follow it.
It is, by far, the cleanest and plainest written Hobbyist License I
have ever seen.
(it
didn't exclude successors
in interest, for example).
Successors to who? It stopped being the property of DEC before DEC went
away. It became the sole property of Bob Supnik as reflected in the
Copyright messages contained in the source files.
Though finding out
would require litigation,
which is an expensive game... and is apparently against the wishes of
Mentec, at least as expressed privately over the years...
Expressed privately to who?
The problem with the license being that it's written in a bit too plain
language which makes it a bit ambiguous once DEC was sold to Compaq and
then to HP since they are a successor interest for many other things...
The EMULATOR in question ceased to be DEC's before DEC was bought by
Compaq. They were never owners of or in control of SIMH. Period.
And with this, I am done. At least until this silly question comes up
again in the future as I am sure it will.
bill
10:32 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:06 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
On 7/29/20 8:20 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
This has been done to death years ago. DEC gave up all ownership of
what is now known as SIMH. Look at the sources. There are no DEC
Copyrights. There are Bob Supnik Copyrights from 1993 forward.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 3:00 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org <mailto:cctalk at classiccmp.org>> wrote:
On 7/29/20 4:22 PM, Bob Smith wrote:
meaning
I am not sure I understand your "as it turns
out there was only
one" Bill.
> Am I correct in assuming you are talking about DEC owned, and that Bob
Supnik one?
John Wilson's Ersatz 11, aka E11, was and is a great functioning
emulator, but not owned by DEC.
We were discussing the Mentec Hobbyist License. It never covered
E11 or anything other than the Supnik Emulator when he was a DEC
employee and DEC actually owned the IP.
How much of the IP does DEC need to own (the license is unclear on this
point)? Unless they conveyed the Copyrights to Supnik in writing (which
is possible), they (well their successors in interest) still have an
ownership interest in the emulator. One could
make a case that the
wording of the license is imprecise enough
The wording is only imprecise to those who do not wish to follow it.
It is, by far, the cleanest and plainest written Hobbyist License I
have ever seen.
(it
didn't exclude
successors
in interest, for example).
Successors to who? It stopped being the property of DEC before DEC went
away. It became the sole property of Bob Supnik as reflected in the
Copyright messages contained in the source files.
Though finding
out would require
litigation,
which is an expensive game... and is apparently
against the wishes of
Mentec, at least as expressed privately over the years...
Expressed privately to who?
The problem with the license being that it's written in a bit too plain
language which makes it a bit ambiguous once DEC was sold to Compaq and
then to HP since they are a successor interest for many other things...
The EMULATOR in question ceased to be DEC's before DEC was bought by
Compaq. They were never owners of or in control of SIMH. Period.
And with this, I am done. At least until this silly question comes up
again in the future as I am sure it will.
bill
10:41 a.m.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 9:06 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
And with this, I am done. At least until this silly
question comes up
again in the future as I am sure it will.
Yea. It's a lot like the folks claiming that the Caldera license grant was
invalid because a judge later ruled the copyrights never left Novel, so
Caldera couldn't make the grant to ancient Unix. It's a big messy area that
the current Unix copyright holders aren't wading into at all (in that case,
it's exacerbated by the fact that 32V was distributed w/o copyright
notices, casting there being a copyright to convey at all). It's
interesting to look at the different points of view, but absolute clarity
likely is not going to be forthcoming.
Warner
31 Jul
31 Jul
4:04 p.m.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:06 AM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
IANAL, but I'm married to one... just pointing out that "clear language"
does not mean the same thing to lawyers as it does to us engineers.
"software owned by Digital Equipment Corporation" is pretty vague as far as
lawyer-speak goes. The license does not seem to specifically include or
exclude alternative scenarios. Anyone, especially a non-lawyer who was not
involved with the drafting of the license, and says "obviously that must
mean X" is just making stuff up (it doesn't matter what X is. Notice that
I'm not saying it means you can use it under this license. I don't know,
and IANAL). It's like undefined behaviour in C. You can make an educated
guess (given additional information you have, such as history,
correspondence with Mentec about the topic etc.), and you might be right,
but the only way to find out for sure is to run the compiler and look at
the disassembly, i.e. force a clarification from Mentec.
One could make a case that the
wording of the license is imprecise enough
The wording is only imprecise to those who do not wish to follow it.
It is, by far, the cleanest and plainest written Hobbyist License I
have ever seen.
29 Jul
29 Jul
12:21 a.m.
On 28/07/2020 19:11, Camiel Vanderhoeven via cctalk wrote:
Will the license also include all the same layered products as before,
or just some subset of these?
Cheers,
Andrew
On Jul 28,
2020, at 7:47 PM, John H. Reinhardt via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
The question that will be answered when someone gets the VSI CLP PAKs is will those PAKS
work on an older version of OpenVMS? The Hobbyist PAKs produced by Compaq and HP have
always worked on current and older versions. Is there something in the License Manager
code that could limit it? The Hobbyist PAKS I have been getting for years all list DEC as
the Producer even through the Compaq and HP years. I suppose VSI could have engineered
OpenVMS and/or the PAKS with VSI as the Producer which would probably limit them to
working on VSI versions of OpenVMS.
No need to wait for that; I can answer that question right away; VSI's been selling
licenses for a while now. Yes, they have a different PRODUCER, so they will not work with
older (non-VSI) versions.
28 Jul
28 Jul
7:18 a.m.
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020, Lee Courtney via cctalk wrote:
FYI...new VMS community license.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ2n2RlNVtw
There's nothing indicating that in the video description or comments. You
sure it's the right video?
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.
http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home.
Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies.
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
4:30 p.m.
Can someone please post a link to some text describing the new licensing program and how
to apply to it?
Just sending a video isn't useful for everyone.
-- Chris
4:41 p.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Can someone please post a link to some text describing the new licensing program and how
to apply to it?
Just sending a video isn't useful for everyone.
? Chris
Honestly, Camiel?s answer on my one question provides more info than the link does.
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/
I applied this morning, who knows how long it will take.
Zane
4:45 p.m.
On Jul 28, 2020, at 4:41 PM, Zane Healy <healyzh at avanthar.com> wrote:
On Jul 28, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Thanks! I've just applied as well. :)
-- Chris
Can someone please post a link to some text describing the new licensing program and how
to apply to it?
Just sending a video isn't useful for everyone.
? Chris
Honestly, Camiel?s answer on my one question provides more info than the link does.
https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-07-28-community-license/
I applied this morning, who knows how long it will take.
1369
days inactive
1372
days old
41 comments
18 participants
participants (18)
-
821＠128.ca -
a.carlini＠ntlworld.com -
andrew＠carrierdetect.com -
bill.gunshannon＠hotmail.com -
bobsmithofd＠gmail.com -
camiel.vanderhoeven＠vmssoftware.com -
camiel＠vaxbarn.com -
cmhanson＠eschatologist.net -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
healyzh＠avanthar.com -
imp＠bsdimp.com -
jason＠smbfc.net -
johnhreinhardt＠thereinhardts.org -
leec2124＠gmail.com -
mjkerpan＠kerpan.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
rp＠servium.ch