French reactions to the new subscription licensing model for OpenVMS, debate report and request for comments

Post by VMSgenerations working group
The new subscription-based licensing mode for VMS has triggered very
negative reactions from users.
The end of perpetual licenses as they have been for 44 years is a big
change.
Users do not accept a PAK with an end-of-use date or an end of right to
use. The risk of production stoppage is too great.

Of course, hobbyist licenses have always expired. Production is more
serious, of course.

Post by VMSgenerations working group
As the adoption of VMS on x86 faces challenges, we hear from users
expressing a loss of confidence in VSI as a result of this change.

VSI certainly should avoid losing customers.

Post by VMSgenerations working group
Are there other ways to manage licenses without an expiration date or
mandatory removal ? Isn't this a good time to start a discussion with VSI?

The sooner the better. VSI have responded to constructive criticism in
the past.

There are at least two issues: annual costs vs. one-time costs, and the
fear that, for whatever reason, no new license will be available.

Many have said that VSI's immediate goal are current users. If everyone
buys a never-to-expire license, that's OK in the short term, but there
is no revenue stream, unless that is covered by support costs. But I
seem to recall that support and licenses go together. The money has to
come from somewhere, and as long as there is no huge change, that is
probably OK.

My guess is that the fear of someday having the license expire is too
great. Makes one feel like a VAX hobbyist. :-| That is a real fear.
People want to invest in VSI products, but what if the company goes
bankrupt?

abrsvc

2021-04-20 21:37:57 UTC

It was my understanding that the majority of revenue was to come from support contracts. Even with DEC, there was an initial cost for software and monthly costs for support of those software packages (compilers, etc). I would have expected the same model at VSI with the emphasis on support contracts. Unfortunately, the reputation of OpenVMS may be playing a part here. It has been very stabile for a long time, and perhaps people don't feel the need for support contracts.

I have clients now that are running V5.5-2, V6.2 on VAX and V7.3-2 on Alpha that have no incentive (at the moment) to move mostly because of the stability of the product.
I expect the first few versions to uncover bugs as its use increases, but overall, perhaps stability is the reason for the change?

Dan

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-21 06:58:29 UTC

It was my understanding that the majority of revenue was to come from suppo=
rt contracts. Even with DEC, there was an initial cost for software and mo=
nthly costs for support of those software packages (compilers, etc). I wou=
ld have expected the same model at VSI with the emphasis on support contrac=
ts. Unfortunately, the reputation of OpenVMS may be playing a part here. =
It has been very stabile for a long time, and perhaps people don't feel the=
need for support contracts.
I have clients now that are running V5.5-2, V6.2 on VAX and V7.3-2 on Alpha=
that have no incentive (at the moment) to move mostly because of the stabi=
lity of the product.
I expect the first few versions to uncover bugs as its use increases, but o=
verall, perhaps stability is the reason for the change?

That might be true. I don't think that most people who move to VSI VMS
would object to paying some sort of yearly fee, whether it is for
licenses, maintenance, some combination, or whatever. I think the real
fear is that at some point there might be no new licenses, and one would
be forced to migrate within, say, just a few months. If it is
unexpected, then perhaps just a few days. If it is expected, by
announcing it well in advance VSI would shut off its own revenue streams
even faster.

Simon Clubley

2021-04-21 03:30:19 UTC

Post by VMSgenerations working group
The new subscription-based licensing mode for VMS has triggered very
negative reactions from users.

Oh, what a surprise. :-(

Well honestly, what the bloody hell did VSI think was going to happen
when they implemented this ? :-(

Post by VMSgenerations working group
The end of perpetual licenses as they have been for 44 years is a big
change.
Users do not accept a PAK with an end-of-use date or an end of right to
use. The risk of production stoppage is too great.

As far as I can tell, VSI have not even considered the escrow option
I suggested when this idiotic licencing change was implemented.

How did VSI ever think it was acceptable in the eyes of the customers
to tie the future existence of VSI to the future existence of the
customer organisations ?

Any remaining VMS systems in production use are likely to be critical
systems which means that if VSI goes bust then the customer is likely
to follow shortly afterwards or at least be heavily damaged when the
licences stop working.

At an absolute minimum, VSI should have made it very clear and in public
that they had arranged a legally binding escrow setup whereby if VSI
went bust, or were otherwise unable to issue licences, then any customers
with a current support contract would be _immediately_ issued with
permanent licences to replace their time-limited licences.

I have not seen anything from VSI which suggests they have done this.

Post by VMSgenerations working group
VMSgenerations (French VMS users group) organized a user debate on this
issue and the resulting digital industrial risk.
As the adoption of VMS on x86 faces challenges, we hear from users
expressing a loss of confidence in VSI as a result of this change.

And that is exactly the counter-productive aspect of this I warned about
where VSI might get some short-term stability but they would damage
their long-term stability as customers looked to move away from VMS
if they could, instead of having this hanging over them.

Post by VMSgenerations working group
We have published a report of this meeting (with an English translation)
that we invite you to read (https://www.vmsgenerations.fr/rdv-11-mar-2021/).
This is the opportunity to discover the reactions of French-speaking
users to the license change.
We would be happy to hear from other VMS users about this. VSI should
review its position on what happens at the end of subscriptions (system
shutdown).

The main concern is not the customer deciding to terminate support as
that is under the control of the customer.

The main concern is if VSI goes bust as that is most certainly _NOT_
under the control of the customer.

Post by VMSgenerations working group
Are there other ways to manage licenses without an expiration date or
mandatory removal ? Isn't this a good time to start a discussion with VSI?

There shouldn't need to be a discussion with VSI about this.

VSI should have planned from day one of this new licencing setup for
what happens if they go bust.

Even if VSI assets are taken over by someone else (and that is most
certainly a big if), then there's still possible delays to getting
new licences during the transition. There is also the possibility
that the new owner might massively hike prices given that they
have a captive customer base (at least in the short term).

All this should have been taken care of in an escrow arrangement
(including protections against massive price hikes by a new owner)
and that escrow arrangement should have been published in public
for everyone to see at the same time these new time-limited
licences were implemented.

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-21 05:27:04 UTC

Post by VMSgenerations working group
The new subscription-based licensing mode for VMS has triggered very
negative reactions from users.

Oh, what a surprise. :-(
Well honestly, what the bloody hell did VSI think was going to happen
when they implemented this ? :-(

<snipped the rant>

Ok, this is where things will end up.

For VSI, if they go bust, what do they care about afterwards?

For customers, looking at a total shutdown is totally unacceptable, and
for self protection, they will move off VMS. The licensing scheme will
do what nobody has been able to do before, kill all commercial VMS usage.

For ISVs, how could any place their eggs in VSI's basket, if they could
lose everything. No ISVs developing for VMS.

It's a circle. Everyone lives, or everyone dies. Totally unacceptable.

It's one thing to say "commercial use requires support". Not really
enforceable. But honest users, if they accept that, will pay the
support costs. As for dishonest users, nobody can win there, so forget
about them.

It is back to the old DEC concept, if you don't pay for VMS, you cannot
run it. That concept is from the past, and won't work today. The
alternative is Unix/Linux, and this concept will drive all commercial
VMS users, sooner or later, off VMS and to Unix/Linux.

There really is no reasonable alternative.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-21 07:09:46 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
For customers, looking at a total shutdown is totally unacceptable, and
for self protection, they will move off VMS. The licensing scheme will
do what nobody has been able to do before, kill all commercial VMS usage.

That's what it looks like.

Post by Dave Froble
It's one thing to say "commercial use requires support". Not really
enforceable.

It is enforceable, via licenses which expire.

Post by Dave Froble
But honest users, if they accept that, will pay the
support costs. As for dishonest users, nobody can win there, so forget
about them.

Many people want support. That is how companies make money with Linux.
For those who don't, why not offer a non-expiring license? People who
need support will still pay for support. People who don't generate
revenue via the one-time fee. With the new scheme, it will exclude some
customers who would be willing to pay a one-time fee, but not a yearly
fee, either because they think that the first might be cheaper, because
they don't need support, or because they are worried that they might be
cut off at some point in the future.

Post by Dave Froble
It is back to the old DEC concept, if you don't pay for VMS, you cannot
run it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that concept. Nothing at all.
VMS is non Linux. There is nothing wrong with people getting paid for
their work, and enforcing that payment and combatting the freeloaders.

But that is not the problem. The "software wants to be free" trope of
the likes of RMS is what will kill VMS if we let it take over.

No, the problem is not that VMS customers don't want to pay. They have
been paying for decades. They WANT to continue to pay. The only
problem is what will happen if, for whatever reason, there are no more
licenses.

Post by Dave Froble
That concept is from the past, and won't work today. The
alternative is Unix/Linux, and this concept will drive all commercial
VMS users, sooner or later, off VMS and to Unix/Linux.
There really is no reasonable alternative.

False dichotomy. It is not either the new subscription model or the
Linux model. One can pay for a license which will not expire and
support in addition.

Dave Froble

2021-04-21 18:56:35 UTC

That's what it looks like.

Post by Dave Froble
It's one thing to say "commercial use requires support". Not really
enforceable.

It is enforceable, via licenses which expire.

Post by Dave Froble
But honest users, if they accept that, will pay the
support costs. As for dishonest users, nobody can win there, so forget
about them.

Post by Dave Froble
It is back to the old DEC concept, if you don't pay for VMS, you cannot
run it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that concept. Nothing at all.
VMS is non Linux. There is nothing wrong with people getting paid for
their work, and enforcing that payment and combatting the freeloaders.
But that is not the problem. The "software wants to be free" trope of
the likes of RMS is what will kill VMS if we let it take over.
No, the problem is not that VMS customers don't want to pay. They have
been paying for decades. They WANT to continue to pay. The only
problem is what will happen if, for whatever reason, there are no more
licenses.

False dichotomy. It is not either the new subscription model or the
Linux model. One can pay for a license which will not expire and
support in addition.

You're not listening Phillip. The new scheme could cause all VMS
systems to stop working, if for any reason VSI wasn't available to
re-issue new licenses to continue operations.

This isn't about the cost of running VMS. This is about a company who
depends on VMS for it's existence to face the OS stopping, and the
company going out of business.

Look at it another way. Say that once a year you have medical treatment
that allows you to live another year. Then one year, the medical
treatment isn't available. What happens to you? That's right, you die.
Would you sign up for something like that?

VSI must set up something, and I'm not going to get specific, that will
insure customers that no matter what happens to VSI, the customer will
continue to have their systems usable. If not, any customer with half a
brain will stop using VMS as soon as they can.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-21 19:46:45 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
It is back to the old DEC concept, if you don't pay for VMS, you cannot
run it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that concept. Nothing at all.
VMS is non Linux. There is nothing wrong with people getting paid for
their work, and enforcing that payment and combatting the freeloaders.
But that is not the problem. The "software wants to be free" trope of
the likes of RMS is what will kill VMS if we let it take over.
No, the problem is not that VMS customers don't want to pay. They have
been paying for decades. They WANT to continue to pay. The only
problem is what will happen if, for whatever reason, there are no more
licenses.

False dichotomy. It is not either the new subscription model or the
Linux model. One can pay for a license which will not expire and
support in addition.

You're not listening Phillip. The new scheme could cause all VMS
systems to stop working, if for any reason VSI wasn't available to
re-issue new licenses to continue operations.

Yes, I am. I also think that it is a big problem. But I don't think
that the Linux model is the only way to solve it.

Post by Dave Froble
This isn't about the cost of running VMS. This is about a company who
depends on VMS for it's existence to face the OS stopping, and the
company going out of business.

Right. But the solution doesn't have to be the Linux model.

Post by Dave Froble
Look at it another way. Say that once a year you have medical treatment
that allows you to live another year. Then one year, the medical
treatment isn't available. What happens to you? That's right, you die.
Would you sign up for something like that?

No. But the alternative is not only the Linux model.

Post by Dave Froble
VSI must set up something, and I'm not going to get specific, that will
insure customers that no matter what happens to VSI, the customer will
continue to have their systems usable. If not, any customer with half a
brain will stop using VMS as soon as they can.

Right. But it doesn't have to be the Linux model.

We didn't have this problem in the past (except for hobbyists). Did
DEC/Compaq/HP(E) have the Linux model then? No. Were people worried
about expiring licenses? No.

We both agree that there is a problem. You seem to think that the only
way to solve it is some Linux-like model. Most customers would be happy
with the old DEC model.

And paying for something in order to use it is just not the issue.

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 06:51:51 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
It is back to the old DEC concept, if you don't pay for VMS, you cannot
run it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that concept. Nothing at all.
VMS is non Linux. There is nothing wrong with people getting paid for
their work, and enforcing that payment and combatting the freeloaders.
But that is not the problem. The "software wants to be free" trope of
the likes of RMS is what will kill VMS if we let it take over.
No, the problem is not that VMS customers don't want to pay. They have
been paying for decades. They WANT to continue to pay. The only
problem is what will happen if, for whatever reason, there are no more
licenses.

False dichotomy. It is not either the new subscription model or the
Linux model. One can pay for a license which will not expire and
support in addition.

You're not listening Phillip. The new scheme could cause all VMS
systems to stop working, if for any reason VSI wasn't available to
re-issue new licenses to continue operations.

Yes, I am. I also think that it is a big problem. But I don't think
that the Linux model is the only way to solve it.

Post by Dave Froble
This isn't about the cost of running VMS. This is about a company who
depends on VMS for it's existence to face the OS stopping, and the
company going out of business.

Right. But the solution doesn't have to be the Linux model.

No. But the alternative is not only the Linux model.

Right. But it doesn't have to be the Linux model.
We didn't have this problem in the past (except for hobbyists). Did
DEC/Compaq/HP(E) have the Linux model then? No. Were people worried
about expiring licenses? No.
We both agree that there is a problem. You seem to think that the only
way to solve it is some Linux-like model. Most customers would be happy
with the old DEC model.
And paying for something in order to use it is just not the issue.

I'm not claiming any particular solution is the only possible solution.

If the usage of anything is limited, then there will be limited users.

I've said for years that VMS in front of as many as possible is in VSI's
best interest.

The concept of "you can't use it if you do not pay" isn't going to mean
a damn thing to those who won't pay, and therefore, whether such use it
or not, has no bearing on revenue for VSI. If they ain't gonna pay,
there is no revenue. So what does it matter? When the "solution" is
going to severely restrict users, that is self defeating.

From the things you post, I'm not sure you can comprehend what I'm saying.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 07:16:33 UTC

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And paying for something in order to use it is just not the issue.

I'm not claiming any particular solution is the only possible solution.

If the usage of anything is limited, then there will be limited users.

Sure.

Post by Dave Froble
I've said for years that VMS in front of as many as possible is in VSI's
best interest.

No, it is not, if it means that there is a real possibility that a
significant number of people can run it in production for free, legally
or not. Yes, that will get VMS in front of as many people as possible,
but not generate enough revenue to keep VSI going. Face it, the RMS
"software wants to be free" concept is bullshit (not to mention his
statement that people who have a different concept regarding free
software or the lack thereof from his are committing "crimes against
humanity" (actual quote)).

Post by Dave Froble
The concept of "you can't use it if you do not pay" isn't going to mean
a damn thing to those who won't pay, and therefore, whether such use it
or not, has no bearing on revenue for VSI. If they ain't gonna pay,
there is no revenue. So what does it matter? When the "solution" is
going to severely restrict users, that is self defeating.

False dichotomy: The alternatives are not only freeloaders or
self-defeating restrictive license terms.

Post by Dave Froble
From the things you post, I'm not sure you can comprehend what I'm saying.

Likewise. :-|

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 16:03:57 UTC

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And paying for something in order to use it is just not the issue.

I'm not claiming any particular solution is the only possible solution.

Well, there you go again. In case you didn't understand, what I
attempted to say, and in the original context I think it was rather
clear, "the alternative for customers is perhaps Unix/Linux". Not too
much else available.

Post by Dave Froble
If the usage of anything is limited, then there will be limited users.

Sure.

Post by Dave Froble
I've said for years that VMS in front of as many as possible is in VSI's
best interest.

No, it is not, if it means that there is a real possibility that a
significant number of people can run it in production for free, legally
or not.

Well, yes, it is. What is one of the continuing complaints? It is the
availability of people with VMS skills. The more places running VMS,
with or without support, that have employees, the more potential people
with those skills that might be looking for jobs.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Yes, that will get VMS in front of as many people as possible,
but not generate enough revenue to keep VSI going.

If, for whatever reason, some company will not pay for support, then
there is no chance for revenue for VSI. Therefore such usage has no
bearing on enough revenue for VSI. Then all that's left is the effort
to stop them from using VMS, which will be more effort than just
ignoring them. Regardless, there might still be employees learning VMS
skills.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Face it, the RMS
"software wants to be free" concept is bullshit

Yes, it is.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
(not to mention his
statement that people who have a different concept regarding free
software or the lack thereof from his are committing "crimes against
humanity" (actual quote)).

Yep, and they probably go around shooting people and blowing up
buildings too. The guy is a complete idiot.

False dichotomy: The alternatives are not only freeloaders or
self-defeating restrictive license terms.

Post by Dave Froble
From the things you post, I'm not sure you can comprehend what I'm saying.

Likewise. :-|

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

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-22 16:22:03 UTC

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
And paying for something in order to use it is just not the issue.

I'm not claiming any particular solution is the only possible solution.

That concept is from the past, and won't work today. The
alternative is Unix/Linux, and this concept will drive all commercial
VMS users, sooner or later, off VMS and to Unix/Linux.

UNISYS OS2200
IBM zSystem
IBM iSystem

Might be others, but these are the ones I am familiar with that are not
Unix or Unix-like.

bill

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 17:02:57 UTC

That concept is from the past, and won't work today. The
alternative is Unix/Linux, and this concept will drive all commercial
VMS users, sooner or later, off VMS and to Unix/Linux.

UNISYS OS2200
IBM zSystem
IBM iSystem
Might be others, but these are the ones I am familiar with that are not
Unix or Unix-like.

There are plenty of other OS - both *nix and non-*nix.

But given how the world looks in 2021 then it seems likely that
customers leaving VMS would go to something like:

90% to Linux
9% to Windows
1% to all other (z, i, AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, *BSD)

Arne

John Dallman

2021-04-22 17:05:00 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
"the alternative for customers is perhaps
Unix/Linux". Not too much else available.

UNISYS OS2200
IBM zSystem
IBM iSystem
Might be others, but these are the ones I am familiar with that are
not Unix or Unix-like.

Switching to OS2200 (or UNISYS MCP) now would be a really strange course
of action, since they're maintained solely for existing customers, and do
not have 64-bit bit addressing.

Switching to IBM Z would make more sense, but is probably going to be as
big a job as switching to UNIX/Linux. The hardware, OSes and support are
also not cheap, at all.

Switching to IBM i requires re-architecting software pretty much from
scratch. It's pretty weird, not bad, but weird. It's going to be a bigger
job than switching to UNIX or Linux.

Other OSes might be NonStop (also a complete re-architecture job) or
Stratus OpenVOS (ditto). GCOS, Fujitsu BS2000, Fujitsu VME, and Fujitsu
31-bit Amdahl mainframes are maintained for existing customers, and NEC
ACOS is Japan-specific.

If you want to move off VMS, x86-64 Linux (or Windows) is inexpensive,
fast, and lots of people know how to work with it.

John

Simon Clubley

2021-04-22 18:34:50 UTC

Post by John Dallman
If you want to move off VMS, x86-64 Linux (or Windows) is inexpensive,
fast, and lots of people know how to work with it.

And has the massive advantage that third parties are offering packages
to help port VMS code to those operating systems, especially Linux.

Considering that, and judging by the comments so far, VSI really are
in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this
licencing policy.

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 20:30:17 UTC

Post by John Dallman
If you want to move off VMS, x86-64 Linux (or Windows) is inexpensive,
fast, and lots of people know how to work with it.

And has the massive advantage that third parties are offering packages
to help port VMS code to those operating systems, especially Linux.
Considering that, and judging by the comments so far, VSI really are
in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this
licencing policy.
Simon.

That's how I see it, if I understand it correctly.

How can a responsible consultant or ISV recommend to their customers to
place themselves in a position that could destroy their company?

Such places me between the rock and the hard place.

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

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 00:12:37 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
And has the massive advantage that third parties are offering packages
to help port VMS code to those operating systems, especially Linux.
Considering that, and judging by the comments so far, VSI really are
in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this
licencing policy.

That's how I see it, if I understand it correctly.
How can a responsible consultant or ISV recommend to their customers to
place themselves in a position that could destroy their company?

That's a good point David. What are you telling _your_ customers
at the moment ?

Post by Dave Froble
Such places me between the rock and the hard place.

I imagine this is not a comfortable situation for you, to put it mildly. :-(

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-23 01:30:07 UTC

That's how I see it, if I understand it correctly.
How can a responsible consultant or ISV recommend to their customers to
place themselves in a position that could destroy their company?

That's a good point David. What are you telling _your_ customers
at the moment ?

As x86 VMS is not yet an issue, I'm not saying a word. It is too early,
and perhaps things are not yet resolved. However, when the question of
moving to x86 VMS comes up, I will have to give my best advice, and
warnings.

I do hope VSI wakes up and realizes what position they may place people
like me. My first responsibility is to my customers. Always.

Post by Dave Froble
Such places me between the rock and the hard place.

I imagine this is not a comfortable situation for you, to put it mildly. :-(

Perhaps things won't be so bleak. Things have looked bad in the past,
and VMS is still here.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-21 07:02:15 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
At an absolute minimum, VSI should have made it very clear and in public
that they had arranged a legally binding escrow setup whereby if VSI
went bust, or were otherwise unable to issue licences, then any customers
with a current support contract would be _immediately_ issued with
permanent licences to replace their time-limited licences.

That is a very sensible solution. Note that implementing it would mean
NO LOSS AT ALL for VSI, and very probably would mean MORE revenue,
because it seems that there is a real danger that some people will cut
their losses and get off VMS sooner rather than later.

Post by Simon Clubley
The main concern is not the customer deciding to terminate support as
that is under the control of the customer.

Yes, but some might have a stable system and would rather pay a one-time
fee than yearly fees if they don't need support.

Post by Simon Clubley
The main concern is if VSI goes bust as that is most certainly _NOT_
under the control of the customer.

Right.

Post by Simon Clubley
All this should have been taken care of in an escrow arrangement
(including protections against massive price hikes by a new owner)
and that escrow arrangement should have been published in public
for everyone to see at the same time these new time-limited
licences were implemented.

My guess is that VSI have to do an about face here or risk folding.

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-21 17:12:16 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?

bill

Simon Clubley

2021-04-21 17:24:44 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?

Can you name one OS company that only sells time-limited licences
for production systems and for which there isn't a second source
if the original OS company goes bust ?

Normally, if an OS vendor goes bust, your purchased licences (and hence
your critical production systems) continue to work until you can
replace them. That's not the case for the VSI time-limited licences.

Simon.

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

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-21 18:32:10 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?

Can you name one OS company that only sells time-limited licences
for production systems and for which there isn't a second source
if the original OS company goes bust ?

I don't know, how do you read this?

"Software Licenses -The base license charges for software
products licensed from Unisys entitle a customer to use
the licensed software for the term of the license."

Post by Simon Clubley
Normally, if an OS vendor goes bust, your purchased licences (and hence
your critical production systems) continue to work until you can
replace them. That's not the case for the VSI time-limited licences.

I don't know that this is necessarily accurate. I am going to try
and find what the licensing rules are for other companies. We'll
see.

bill

Paul Hardy

2021-04-21 17:51:23 UTC

On 4/20/21 11:30 PM, Simon Clubley

... arranged a legally binding escrow setup ...

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

Not an OS company but it was commonplace for software applications
companies in the UK in the 80s/90s. At Laser-Scan, I had to produce the
escrow tapes twice a year that included the source code and licence
generation tools. These were lodged with a reputable third party in case we
went bust (which eventually we did).

--
Paul at the paulhardy.net domain

Chris Townley

2021-04-21 18:15:03 UTC

Post by Paul Hardy

On 4/20/21 11:30 PM, Simon Clubley

... arranged a legally binding escrow setup ...

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

We had a few software houses that we insisted did the same for us. Sadly
we were the one who went under last year - long after we stopped using
any of that software I believe

Chris

Dave Froble

2021-04-21 18:59:07 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

I don't know. However, has any OS vendor in the past or present put
"drop dead" into their software? Perhaps, but I'm unaware of such.

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

David Turner

2021-04-21 19:58:26 UTC

The problem in the eyes of VSI, as I see it, is maximization of
potential revenue.
For a long time, customers "cheated" by using the same license on
multiple servers, got patches from friends in the business and failed to
create any revenue
for HPE OpenVMS profit ctr (Now VSI)

Instead of implementing a hardware license, which I think they should
have done, which would go alongside a paper perpetual license, they have
gone this moronic way of basicall temporary licensing. This means you
gotta keep coming back for more....
I see why they are doing it, but it is a bad bad move. We have already
started selling more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on
i4/i6 servers (which are perpetual)
And contrary to popular belief, we can still buy them new; i4 and i6
servers work fine with the HPE OpenVMS license.
I have to sell a cpu with it but they are cheap now.

Bad move on VSI's part.

David
Island Computers
dturner-at-islandco.com

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

I don't know. However, has any OS vendor in the past or present put
"drop dead" into their software? Perhaps, but I'm unaware of such.

Robert A. Brooks

2021-04-21 21:20:01 UTC

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

--
-- Rob

David Turner

2021-04-22 00:09:07 UTC

Not true
I have one running in the office and it has been running for 6 weeks
HPE OpenVMS 8.4 v10000 on rx2800 i4 with dual 9560 cpus
Had to buy 4 x 4 core licenses for it

David

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

David Turner

2021-04-22 00:34:48 UTC

If anyone wants to see proof that rx2800 i4 and i6 will run on HPE
OpenVMS 8.4 then let me know
I will set up a login for you and you can see for yourselves

David

Post by David Turner
Not true
I have one running in the office and it has been running for 6 weeks
HPE OpenVMS 8.4 v10000 on rx2800 i4 with dual 9560 cpus
Had to buy 4 x 4 core licenses for it
David

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

Colin Butcher

2021-04-22 11:26:45 UTC

As far as I know, the history of VMS during the transition from HPE to
VSI was as follows:

The -i4 servers (based on the Poulson microprocessor) were released
towards the end of HPE’s VMS development when the transition of VMS
development to VSI started.

HPE’s VMS V8.4 with Update 10 had some latent support for the -i4
servers, but was not qualified or tested on -i4 servers. I remember a
lot of discussion at one of the bootcamps about this when someone from
HPE India said that HPE would not be releasing VMS for the -i4 servers
because of the need for testing and qualification.

VSI’s initial task during the transition of VMS from HPE to VSI was to
produce a supported and tested release for the -i4 servers. There was a
lot of work went into supporting the -i4 servers, such as correctly
handling the number of CPUs in a large blade server.

VSI’s VMS V8.4-1H1 was the first to support the -i4 servers. See VSI VMS
V8.4-1H1 SPD: https://vmssoftware.com/docs/VSI_SPD_OS_Sept2015.pdf
(pages 28 to 33).

Just because HPE V8.4 with latent support happens to boot and run on a
-i4 or -i6 server does not mean that it's been thoroughly tested or that
it's suitable for deployment in a production environment. The only
supported VMS versions for -i4 and -i6 servers are from VSI, not HPE.

Cheers, Colin.

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 06:41:37 UTC

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

Robert, I'd really like to understand what VSI is thinking.

Do you understand how self defeating any "drop dead" concept is?

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

John Wallace

2021-04-22 12:39:01 UTC

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

Robert, I'd really like to understand what VSI is thinking.
Do you understand how self defeating any "drop dead" concept is?

Readers won't really expect Rob to be able to answer that (especially
"in public") will they Dave??? But *somebody* surely needs to be able to
be able to address the topic, either someone from VSI or someone acting
on behalf of VSI?

The VSI website, at
https://vmssoftware.com/about/key-managers/
suggests that VSI has a
"Chief Customer Advocate [who] is responsible for ensuring that the
present and future needs of OpenVMS customers are represented in the
actions and plans of VMS Software, Inc. [...] Along with advocating for
customers [...]"

Does that sound like the kind of role where someone ought to be aware of
the topics being discussed here, and where someone ought to be able to
address some of those concerns among the past, present, and future VMS
customer base?

Some people might even think that a Chief Revenue Office and a Chief of
Business Development might be interested in the subject too, maybe even
a Director of Strategy.

But this may not be the right channel to get through to those people.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 14:03:09 UTC

Post by John Wallace
Readers won't really expect Rob to be able to answer that (especially
"in public") will they Dave??? But *somebody* surely needs to be able to
be able to address the topic, either someone from VSI or someone acting
on behalf of VSI?
The VSI website, at
https://vmssoftware.com/about/key-managers/
suggests that VSI has a
"Chief Customer Advocate [who] is responsible for ensuring that the
present and future needs of OpenVMS customers are represented in the
actions and plans of VMS Software, Inc. [...] Along with advocating for
customers [...]"
Does that sound like the kind of role where someone ought to be aware of
the topics being discussed here, and where someone ought to be able to
address some of those concerns among the past, present, and future VMS
customer base?
Some people might even think that a Chief Revenue Office and a Chief of
Business Development might be interested in the subject too, maybe even
a Director of Strategy.
But this may not be the right channel to get through to those people.

Everyone who has some sort of personal connection to VSI should pursue
that route, and ask them to escalate it.

Robert A. Brooks

2021-04-22 13:41:58 UTC

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

Robert, I'd really like to understand what VSI is thinking.
Do you understand how self defeating any "drop dead" concept is?

It's not an engineering issue.

--
-- Rob

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 16:16:08 UTC

We have already started selling
more of NEW HPE openvms licenses again, being used on i4/i6 servers
(which are perpetual)

Only VSI VMS will run on an i4 and i6.

Robert, I'd really like to understand what VSI is thinking.
Do you understand how self defeating any "drop dead" concept is?

It's not an engineering issue.

Yeah, should have realized, but 2:41 AM isn't a very coherent time for me.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 07:09:12 UTC

Post by David Turner
The problem in the eyes of VSI, as I see it, is maximization of
potential revenue.

One can't fault a company for that. Of course, what at first to some
looks good in terms of revenue might be bad in the longer term.

Post by David Turner
For a long time, customers "cheated" by using the same license on
multiple servers, got patches from friends in the business and failed to
create any revenue
for HPE OpenVMS profit ctr (Now VSI)

It wasn't that long ago that patches were publicly available, so that is
probably not the issue. Also, charging money to fix problems in
something one has already bought is not good business practice and can
create a conflict of interest.

Post by David Turner
Instead of implementing a hardware license, which I think they should
have done, which would go alongside a paper perpetual license, they have
gone this moronic way of basicall temporary licensing. This means you
gotta keep coming back for more....

I see your point, but even my hobbyist cluster is set up so that if a
node fails, I can swap in another box. I doubt that anyone runs a
serious production system without a similar setup. Of course, one could
buy hardware licenses for stuff which one hopes never to have to use.

But if cheating is a problem, what is to prevent people from sharing
temporary licenses which are not tied to the hardware?

Post by David Turner
And contrary to popular belief, we can still buy them new; i4 and i6
servers work fine with the HPE OpenVMS license.

But one has to have HPE's VMS, not VSI's, right?

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 07:30:17 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

I don't know since I haven't used it, but didn't MicroSoft move to an
annual-subscription model, at least for some things?

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 07:50:05 UTC

Long-time users of VMS (which probably most customers, actual or
potential, of VSI are) remember how VMS was neglected towards the end of
DEC, how it was neglected at Compaq, neglected at HP, and ran out of
steam at HPE. Without exception, all are extremely happy that VSI
exists. However, based on past experience, there is the real fear that
if, for whatever reason, VSI ceases to exist, then they will not be
able to continue to run their systems. That is a real fear. It is
enough to make some leave VMS sooner, while they can still port in
peace, rather than later, when they are forced to. Yes, later might not
happen, but it is a possibility which has to be taken into account.

To a lesser extent, there is the problem of the captive customer.
Regardless of how realistic the alternative is, avoiding that is one of
Linux's main selling points. It is hard enough to justify purchasing
VMS licenses to people who don't know what VMS is (but are calling the
shots). If it is a one-time fee for a perpetual license, experience
shows that it can be done. However, if it is an annual fee, with the
potential to increase greatly in the future, it will be more difficult,
since there is only the alternative of paying it or leaving VMS. Of
course, to a lesser extent that problem also exists for support
contracts, but theoretically someone else could offer support, and
running without support is at least possible while running without a
license is not.

Wearing my hobbyist hat, the hobbyist licenses were always terminated
and the programme itself was can-go-away-at-any-time. Not ideal, but if
one is not paying for it then one can't complain. But commercial
licenses are very, very different. I really think that the decision not
to issue perpetual licenses might actually kill VMS. It might even
impact hobbyists. Of course, many hobbyists run hardware and software
which is no longer supported, but with legal transfers of perpetual
licenses, or buying new ones in time, that is possible. It won't be if
there are no perpetual licenses. Of course, I doubt that there will be
a VSI hobbyist programme if there is no commercial programme at VSI.

VSI should escalate this issue up to top management, and listen to real
users of VMS. I started using VMS in 1992, when it was very common in
academia. (I even bought a new AlphaStation 255/233 with my own money
where I moved to an institute which didn't offer me VMS.) Even DEC
essentially gave up on that market. I've been using it continuously
since then, have had my own cluster since 1997, and a hobbyist cluster
at home since 2001. For 20 years, I worked at the German stock exchange
in Frankfurt, with VMS and Rdb. The stock exchange used to be a big VMS
customer. It still is, to some extent, though now moving away from VMS.
True, the decision to move away from VMS was made before VSI came into
existence, but VSI haven't managed to reverse that trend (as far as I
know; I took paid voluntary early retirement at the end of last year).
There is thus a history of VMS losing markets (academia, former big
customers in the financial and health-care worlds) basically due to bad
marketing decisions. Many people were hopeful when VSI was launched,
but it seems that now there is a return to bad marketing decisions. I
think it is fair to say that if VSI fails with VMS, then it is gone for
good, and that would be a real shame.

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-22 12:01:18 UTC

Not meaning to be pedantic, but can you name one OS company past
or present that has actually done this?
bill

I don't know since I haven't used it, but didn't MicroSoft move to an
annual-subscription model, at least for some things?

I was talking about the escrowing. Relatively sure MS hasn't.

bill

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 13:47:11 UTC

First one need to note that:
- VSI supposedly sell 5 year licenses and 5 years should allow for a
migration project (and if VSI went under then customers should start
a migration project)
- if VSI went under then somebody would buy the right to issue new
licenses. That right would be a license to print money and in a
market economy it will happen.

But I do understand the customer concern, because:
- Murphy's law state that if VSI went under it would happen
2 weeks before the 5 year license expired
- it wcould easily take 12 months for the lawyers to figure out
who get the right to issue new licenses
so customers could get screwed bad.

One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
end users could live with:
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

VSI would get an annual revenue stream (and there
would not be any problems with liquidation value).
Customer would know that they got 4-5 years to migrate
off - or make a deal with whoever ends up with the rights
to issue new licenses.

Arne

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-22 14:07:12 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- VSI supposedly sell 5 year licenses and 5 years should allow for a
migration project (and if VSI went under then customers should start
a migration project)

When would one renew? Probably a few months before the license expires,
at most. If VSI folds then, too bad. The only advantage of a 5-year
license is that one has that worry every fifth year, not every year, but
it is the same worry.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- if VSI went under then somebody would buy the right to issue new
licenses. That right would be a license to print money and in a
market economy it will happen.

Who has bought the right to issue new VAX licenses?

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- Murphy's law state that if VSI went under it would happen
2 weeks before the 5 year license expired

At least one must be prepared for that scenario.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- it wcould easily take 12 months for the lawyers to figure out
who get the right to issue new licenses
so customers could get screwed bad.

Right.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here. If they don't go with that solution, perhaps
because it comes across as lacking confidence in themselves.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

Good idea.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
VSI would get an annual revenue stream (and there
would not be any problems with liquidation value).
Customer would know that they got 4-5 years to migrate
off - or make a deal with whoever ends up with the rights
to issue new licenses.

Have you applied for the job of customer relations with VSI?

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 14:14:36 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- VSI supposedly sell 5 year licenses and 5 years should allow for a
migration project (and if VSI went under then customers should start
a migration project)

Yes.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- if VSI went under then somebody would buy the right to issue new
licenses. That right would be a license to print money and in a
market economy it will happen.

Who has bought the right to issue new VAX licenses?

I believe HP is still selling commercial VAX licenses.

Hobbyist VMS VAX is dead. But there are no money
to be made for that.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- Murphy's law state that if VSI went under it would happen
2 weeks before the 5 year license expired

At least one must be prepared for that scenario.

Yes. That is proper caution.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- it wcould easily take 12 months for the lawyers to figure out
who get the right to issue new licenses
so customers could get screwed bad.

Right.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
If they don't go with that solution, perhaps
because it comes across as lacking confidence in themselves.

Or they are concerned about the legal implications.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

Good idea.

:-)

Have you applied for the job of customer relations with VSI?

:-)

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-22 14:23:03 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

As long as we are looking at hypothetical situations, how about
this:
VSI escrows VMS - VSI starts going bankrupt - VSI and the rights to
VMS are bought by a competitor who decides to not offer any future
licenses for VMS. "Who would do that?" you say. How about a
competitor who wants to see the competition end. The escrow
package can not be released without the permission of the IP owner.

bill

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 14:38:09 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

As long as we are looking at hypothetical situations, how about
VSI escrows VMS - VSI starts going bankrupt - VSI and the rights to
VMS are bought by a competitor who decides to not offer any future
licenses for VMS. "Who would do that?" you say. How about a
competitor who wants to see the competition end. The escrow
package can not be released without the permission of the IP owner.

Escrow release happens when certain conditions are met.

Whether those conditions are met are not up the IP owner to decide.

Which is why an escrow agreement would reduce the value of the IP.

Arne

Simon Clubley

2021-04-22 18:29:26 UTC

Post by Bill Gunshannon
As long as we are looking at hypothetical situations, how about
VSI escrows VMS - VSI starts going bankrupt - VSI and the rights to
VMS are bought by a competitor who decides to not offer any future
licenses for VMS. "Who would do that?" you say. How about a
competitor who wants to see the competition end. The escrow
package can not be released without the permission of the IP owner.

Escrow release happens when certain conditions are met.
Whether those conditions are met are not up the IP owner to decide.
Which is why an escrow agreement would reduce the value of the IP.

Exactly. The whole point of an escrow agreement is to take this out
of the hands of an IP owner so the above situation simply cannot happen.

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-22 16:39:19 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

This assumes creditors with some claims on the company. Otherwise, what
duty?

HA! Who considers VMS a competitor?

Post by Bill Gunshannon
The escrow
package can not be released without the permission of the IP owner.

If the escrow is part of any support contract, then the customers would
have legal access to whatever promised in the agreement. Future IP
owners, should any exist would not have any say about such a contract.

From the hypothetical concept of future IP owners, any such would
probably do all they could to produce revenue from users, not screw over
them.

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

Simon Clubley

2021-04-22 18:27:11 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

You can argue that VSI are preserving value by offering escrow
because of the additional customers VSI get to keep as a result.

You could also word the escrow in such a way that it doesn't
trigger if another company _immediately_ buys the VSI assets
if VSI fails and _immediately_ starts offering updated licences.

In that case, the escrow could be made to only trigger if the
buying company massively hikes prices or stops offering viable
support for VMS while still taking the customer's money.

Don't forget that the escrow will be with a third party so this
will be possible if the escrow is setup in that way.

Simon.

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

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 18:53:49 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

You can argue that VSI are preserving value by offering escrow
because of the additional customers VSI get to keep as a result.

What would the argument specifically be in that case. We are
bankrupt but it was a good thing to do this to keep the business
running?

:-)

Post by Simon Clubley
You could also word the escrow in such a way that it doesn't
trigger if another company _immediately_ buys the VSI assets
if VSI fails and _immediately_ starts offering updated licences.

If VSI was sold off that could happen. But if it really went
under then it would take time. Stuff like that usually takes
several months. And VMS IP could be tricky due to the fact
that VSI does not own it - it just has usage rights and
HP (HPE) still owns it.

Arne

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 00:10:42 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

You can argue that VSI are preserving value by offering escrow
because of the additional customers VSI get to keep as a result.

What would the argument specifically be in that case. We are
bankrupt but it was a good thing to do this to keep the business
running?
:-)

No. We survived for longer than we would have done otherwise and may
have avoided going bankrupt.

This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-23 01:32:34 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

I don't follow you here.

VSI has a duty to preserve value. Giving away something in
case VSI goes under could be problematic.

You can argue that VSI are preserving value by offering escrow
because of the additional customers VSI get to keep as a result.

What would the argument specifically be in that case. We are
bankrupt but it was a good thing to do this to keep the business
running?
:-)

No. We survived for longer than we would have done otherwise and may
have avoided going bankrupt.

This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

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

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 06:25:05 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?

Simon.

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

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 06:49:58 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?
Simon.

I do not know about Itanium, but the current Alpha PAKs does not
have any termination date. On the other side, the suppport that
is boundled with the licens has an end date. But as far as it
comes for the systems, they will not stop at some date.

The support contract was renewed last summer (2020) but the PAKs
are still the original from 2017. I do not even remember getting
new PAKs at all when we renewed the contract...

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 06:53:33 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?
Simon.

I do not know about Itanium, but the current Alpha PAKs does not
have any termination date. On the other side, the suppport that
is boundled with the licens has an end date. But as far as it
comes for the systems, they will not stop at some date.
The support contract was renewed last summer (2020) but the PAKs
are still the original from 2017. I do not even remember getting
new PAKs at all when we renewed the contract...

B.t.w, I think that the solution to all this is to make sure that
enough goodies are boudled into the support offer to make the users
to *want* to signe up and pay for suppport. Not to *force* the
users to pay for support just to prevent their systems to stop.

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 12:57:41 UTC

Post by Jan-Erik SÃ¶derholm
B.t.w, I think that the solution to all this is to make sure that
enough goodies are boudled into the support offer to make the users
to *want* to signe up and pay for suppport. Not to *force* the
users to pay for support just to prevent their systems to stop.

That still doesn't handle the problem of VSI going bust however.

Simon.

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

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 13:01:49 UTC

That still doesn't handle the problem of VSI going bust however.
Simon.

The point is that VSI will not "go bust" if the customers
stays and are happy. And they will do that if they find the
products offered by VSI are worth the price.

*Any* company can go bust....

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:08:51 UTC

That still doesn't handle the problem of VSI going bust however.

The point is that VSI will not "go bust" if the customers
stays and are happy. And they will do that if they find the
products offered by VSI are worth the price.
*Any* company can go bust....

Any company can go bust.

Given enough time then most companies will come to an end (bust
or more graceful).

But most people will consider VSI a bigger risk than
IBM, Microsoft, Oracle etc. simply due to size.

Note that the small size of VSI also has a significant upside.
VSI will not end VMS. If VMS had stayed with HPE, then we
may have worried less about HPE going bust, but we would
have worried a lot about whether HPE CEO one morning got up
and said "let us kill VMS today".

Arne

Hans Bachner

2021-04-23 09:57:05 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?

If you purchase a new Itanium license/support bundle now, the licenses
are limited for a year.

If you renew an existing support contract, you already have a license
without a termination date.

I was talking to a customer about moving his HPE OpenVMS IA64 systems to
VSI OpenVMS when VSI stopped selling perpetual licenses. The talks are
frozen since, though I got signals from VSI that exceptions from the
rule (terminating licenses) might be possible, at least for specific
cases. Don't know the details yet, need to resume the talks with the
customer first.

Hans.

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 13:03:27 UTC

Post by Hans Bachner

Post by Simon Clubley
Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?

If you purchase a new Itanium license/support bundle now, the licenses
are limited for a year.

Thank you Hans. That's what I thought was happening, so this is something
that is actually happening now with Itanium, not something for the
future when x86-64 VMS comes along.

And thanks to Jan-Erik for stating the situation with his Alpha licences.

Simon.

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

Craig A. Berry

2021-04-23 16:25:30 UTC

Post by Hans Bachner

Post by Simon Clubley
Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?

If you purchase a new Itanium license/support bundle now, the licenses
are limited for a year.

Thank you Hans. That's what I thought was happening, so this is something
that is actually happening now with Itanium, not something for the
future when x86-64 VMS comes along.

It depends on how you got your licenses. Where I work we got Itanium
licenses from VSI in 2017 and they are non-expiring and supposedly
include upgrade rights to x86_64 when it's available (I specifically
asked about that when we moved from HPE to VSI). So for us it is not
happening now, but for people who have gotten new licenses last year or
this year, it's already happened. I'm not sure we'll ever move to
x86_64, but if we consider it and it means losing perpetual licenses,
that would be a major impediment to moving.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 13:15:14 UTC

Post by Hans Bachner

Post by Simon Clubley
Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?

If you purchase a new Itanium license/support bundle now, the licenses
are limited for a year.

Thank you Hans. That's what I thought was happening, so this is something
that is actually happening now with Itanium, not something for the
future when x86-64 VMS comes along.

According to the announcement, actually now with Alpha and Itanium and
planned for x86. For new licenses.

Dave Froble

2021-04-23 14:28:02 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
This whole thing is a bloody mess and is very clearly costing
VSI customers, at least based on the comments here.

I don't think that is happening yet. When it's time to move to x86 VMS
is when people will have to inspect the terms very carefully.

Are the current VSI Itanium licences also time-limited or is that
only x86-64 VMS ?
Simon.

As far as I know, there are no time limited licenses. I'm guessing it's
planning for x86 VMS. I'm hoping there is some more thought on the subject.

So, not a problem, at this time. Let's not be in a rush to get panties
in a wedgie.

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

Stephen Hoffman

2021-04-23 15:39:00 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
As far as I know, there are no time limited licenses. I'm guessing
it's planning for x86 VMS. I'm hoping there is some more thought on
the subject.
So, not a problem, at this time. Let's not be in a rush to get panties
in a wedgie.

OpenVMS SaaS licensing already happened.

Most (all?) of the VSI license product authorization keys (PAKs) for
OpenVMS I64 and layered products acquired from ~July 2020 onward will
terminate.

This is not some hypothetical future SaaS licensing change for OpenVMS
x86-64. It happened. OpenVMS is SaaS licensed now. I've been loading
PAKs with termination dates.

I have mentioned the VSI SaaS change around here before too, and it's
nice to see that it's finally now getting some coverage.

Set your calendar alerts, for you folks with newer OpenVMS licenses.
The renewal "fun" is no longer reserved to partners and hobbyists.

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 14:08:55 UTC

- VSI supposedly sell 5 year licenses and 5 years should allow for a
migration project (and if VSI went under then customers should start
a migration project)
- if VSI went under then somebody would buy the right to issue new
licenses. That right would be a license to print money and in a
market economy it will happen.
- Murphy's law state that if VSI went under it would happen
2 weeks before the 5 year license expired
- it wcould easily take 12 months for the lawyers to figure out
who get the right to issue new licenses
so customers could get screwed bad.
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years
VSI would get an annual revenue stream (and there
would not be any problems with liquidation value).
Customer would know that they got 4-5 years to migrate
off - or make a deal with whoever ends up with the rights
to issue new licenses.

Also note that I believe this is sort of a short/mid
term problem.

Long term the world will look different.

In 2036 I suspect that companies using VMS will get
a monthly bill from Amazon/Microsoft/Google for
X CPU minutes + Y TB storage minutes + Z VMS instance
minutes. And the cloud provider will pay VSI directly.

:-)

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-22 14:15:51 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
Long term the world will look different.
In 2036 I suspect that companies using VMS will get
a monthly bill from Amazon/Microsoft/Google for
X CPU minutes + Y TB storage minutes + Z VMS instance
minutes. And the cloud provider will pay VSI directly.

With people here talking about a fear of VMS going away unexpectedly
stranding them on a sinking ship, I really don't understand how anyone
would ever consider a cloud solution.

bill

Simon Clubley

2021-04-22 18:17:42 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
One option is the Escrow solution, but somehow I feel
that VSI may be reluctant to go that path. It could
reduce the value of the remains in the worst case
scenario.

Judging by the comments here, it looks like the current setup
is turning away customers from VSI. If so, that will be reducing
the money VSI currently receives from those current and future
customers.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years
VSI would get an annual revenue stream (and there
would not be any problems with liquidation value).
Customer would know that they got 4-5 years to migrate
off - or make a deal with whoever ends up with the rights
to issue new licenses.

VSI beancounter: What's to stop the customer from cancelling the
subscription after the first year and then keep using the licences
for free for the next 4 years unless we spend the time and effort
to sue them ?

Simon.

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

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-22 18:46:11 UTC

I am not sure that I can follow you.

Today you can:
- you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 5 year in 2026
* you pay for 5 year in 2031

My proposal suggests:
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
...
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

I do not see that as increasing the risk of license fraud.

Arne

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 00:01:33 UTC

I am not sure that I can follow you.
- you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 5 year in 2026
* you pay for 5 year in 2031
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
...
* you pay for 1 year in 2035
I do not see that as increasing the risk of license fraud.

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant pay 1 year at a time, but
get a licence for the following 5 years.

In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Simon.

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

Dave Froble

2021-04-23 00:06:24 UTC

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant pay 1 year at a time, but
get a licence for the following 5 years.
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...
Simon.

Back in the day, I sold quite a few new systems, because the new system
with a three year warranty, which meant 3 years service, was cheaper
than 3 more years service on the old system. That was before getting to
the added capabilities and performance. Perhaps not quite the same
thing, but, the bean counters liked it.

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

Chris Townley

2021-04-23 09:04:20 UTC

Post by Dave Froble
Back in the day, I sold quite a few new systems, because the new system
with a three year warranty, which meant 3 years service, was cheaper
than 3 more years service on the old system. That was before getting to
the added capabilities and performance. Perhaps not quite the same
thing, but, the bean counters liked it.

That was the sole reason for our Itanium port - new hardware saved a
fortune over our old Alpha kit

Chris

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 09:33:12 UTC

In article <s5u2io$ct8$***@dont-email.me>, Chris Townley
<***@cct-net.co.uk> writes:

I had a look at the VSI website, but couldn't find anything.

Can anyone post the actual text of the license agreement, including
expiration, payment options, what a subscription includes, when new
licenses are issued, and so on?

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 12:09:54 UTC

What did Chris write?

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I had a look at the VSI website, but couldn't find anything.

I can see a lot of things on the VSI website. Growing each day.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Can anyone post the actual text of the license agreement,

Which "license agreement"? The current ones for Alpha or Itanium?
Or the currently nonexistent one for x86?

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
including expiration, payment options, what a subscription includes,
when new licenses are issued, and so on?

To my understanding, there are no license options for any platform
having a true subscription model today.

This might be added when x86 is released for general use.

And, generally, you will be given all answers to this when you
ask VSI for a license quote. Do that and specify your target
environment and I'm sure they will tell you how it works.

And personally I have only access to ur Alpha licenses, of course.

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:00:15 UTC

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
I had a look at the VSI website, but couldn't find anything.
Can anyone post the actual text of the license agreement, including
expiration, payment options, what a subscription includes, when new
licenses are issued, and so on?

The announcement was:

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/

Arne

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 13:13:18 UTC

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/

Thanks.

Alpha, Itanium, and planned for x86: same for all. Of course, only for
new licenses. Payment can be split over several years. Right to use
and support. Doesn't mention expiration date, which seems to be the
problematic point.

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:15:59 UTC

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/

Thanks.
Alpha, Itanium, and planned for x86: same for all. Of course, only for
new licenses. Payment can be split over several years. Right to use
and support. Doesn't mention expiration date, which seems to be the
problematic point.

It is a press release.

So the relevant part must be:

<quote>
...
More details are available from the VSI Portfolio Programs data sheet.

For more details on VSI’s subscriptions, please contact VMS Software,
Inc. at ...
</quote>

Arne

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 13:17:51 UTC

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/

Thanks.
Alpha, Itanium, and planned for x86: same for all. Of course, only for
new licenses. Payment can be split over several years. Right to use
and support. Doesn't mention expiration date, which seems to be the
problematic point.

It is a press release.
<quote>
...
More details are available from the VSI Portfolio Programs data sheet.
For more details on VSI’s subscriptions, please contact VMS Software, Inc.
at ...
</quote>
Arne

Yes, agree. PLEASE ASK VSI, if there are any further questions... :-)

John Wallace

2021-04-23 15:42:32 UTC

https://vmssoftware.com/about/news/2020-05-01-subscription-price-model/

Thanks.
Alpha, Itanium, and planned for x86: same for all. Of course, only for
new licenses. Payment can be split over several years. Right to use
and support. Doesn't mention expiration date, which seems to be the
problematic point.

As written, the press release doesn't exactly shout out that the
subscription model (with expiration dates) is intended to *replace* the
existing non-terminating licences.

Any suggestions as to where the "VSI Portfolio Programs data sheet"
might be found?

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 02:00:23 UTC

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant pay 1 year at a time, but
get a licence for the following 5 years.
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

VSI is selling licenses for just 1 year if they prefer that.

But if they are not willing to pay for the next 5 years, then
maybe knowing that they can get a license for the next 5 years
was not that important after all.

Arne

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 08:17:14 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
VSI beancounter: What's to stop the customer from cancelling the
subscription after the first year and then keep using the licences
for free for the next 4 years unless we spend the time and effort
to sue them ?

I misunderstood you. I thought you meant pay 1 year at a time, but
get a licence for the following 5 years.

Right.

Post by Simon Clubley
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Why not?

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 13:00:09 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Why not?

Because in the eyes of the customer's accountants, it may come across
as giving VSI a permanent interest-free loan equal to 4 years worth
of support costs.

Simon.

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

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 13:07:37 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Why not?

Because in the eyes of the customer's accountants, it may come across
as giving VSI a permanent interest-free loan equal to 4 years worth
of support costs.
Simon.

Well, if I'm not wrong, the "per year" price is lower if you signup
for multile years at once. It is not a flat per year prince.

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:14:16 UTC

Post by Simon Clubley
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Why not?

Because in the eyes of the customer's accountants, it may come across
as giving VSI a permanent interest-free loan equal to 4 years worth
of support costs.

(unless they get a discount for paying upfront for 5 years)

The argument against the expiring licenses was: if VSI goes
bust and we suddenly only have a few days/weeks/months to
find an alternative then our entire business is going to close -
and that is an unacceptable risk.

Now when a solution is proposed that will give 4-5 years to
find a solution, then preventing that risk is not
worth the interest lost due to multi-year pre-paying.

Well ...

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-23 13:27:27 UTC

On 2021-04-23, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

Post by Simon Clubley
In your suggestion, it does mean you have paid for 7 years by year 3 and
for 8 years by year 4. I'm not convinced that the customer's accountants
would go for that...

Why not?

Because in the eyes of the customer's accountants, it may come across
as giving VSI a permanent interest-free loan equal to 4 years worth
of support costs.

(unless they get a discount for paying upfront for 5 years)
The argument against the expiring licenses was: if VSI goes
bust and we suddenly only have a few days/weeks/months to
find an alternative then our entire business is going to close -
and that is an unacceptable risk.
Now when a solution is proposed that will give 4-5 years to
find a solution, then preventing that risk is not
worth the interest lost due to multi-year pre-paying.
Well ...

The difference is between the point of view between the techies
and the bean-counters. Which one do you think has the greatest
influence with the C-level execs?

bill

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 17:49:37 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
The argument against the expiring licenses was: if VSI goes
bust and we suddenly only have a few days/weeks/months to
find an alternative then our entire business is going to close -
and that is an unacceptable risk.
Now when a solution is proposed that will give 4-5 years to
find a solution, then preventing that risk is not
worth the interest lost due to multi-year pre-paying.

It's not the interest. The 4 years worth of support money itself is
tied up permanently at VSI and cannot be invested elsewhere in the
customer's company.

With a normal 5-year support contract, you gain the benefits of the
5-year costs over the 5-year contract period and at the end of the
5-year period, there's no outstanding money at VSI.

In this case, you would have 4 years worth of costs permanently tied
up at VSI as an effectively interest-free loan and at the end of the
5-year period, you would _still_ have an additional 4 years worth of
costs permanently tied up at VSI.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
Well ...

The difference is between the point of view between the techies
and the bean-counters. Which one do you think has the greatest
influence with the C-level execs?

Exactly. This needs looking at from the accountant's point of view.
And if you make the costs too great, then the motivation to move to
another operating system just becomes greater.

From an accountant's point of view, it's the 4-year permanent loan
of your company's money to VSI that would draw attention.

Simon.

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

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 18:02:00 UTC

It's not the interest. The 4 years worth of support money itself is
tied up permanently at VSI and cannot be invested elsewhere in the
customer's company.
With a normal 5-year support contract, you gain the benefits of the
5-year costs over the 5-year contract period and at the end of the
5-year period, there's no outstanding money at VSI.
In this case, you would have 4 years worth of costs permanently tied
up at VSI as an effectively interest-free loan and at the end of the
5-year period, you would _still_ have an additional 4 years worth of
costs permanently tied up at VSI.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
Well ...

The difference is between the point of view between the techies
and the bean-counters. Which one do you think has the greatest
influence with the C-level execs?

Exactly. This needs looking at from the accountant's point of view.
And if you make the costs too great, then the motivation to move to
another operating system just becomes greater.
From an accountant's point of view, it's the 4-year permanent loan
of your company's money to VSI that would draw attention.

They got options.

They can decide that long term is not important and prepay 0-1 year.

They can decide that long term is important and prepay 4-5 years.

Their choice.

They can also say that long term is not important enough to
prepay 4-5 years but that long term is so important so they cannot
live with 1 year. And hope that VSI accept that.

In my book if the C level decide that they are not willing to prepay
4-5 years for X then they have decided that X is not business critical.
They may be wrong, but they made the decision.

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-23 21:01:16 UTC

It's not the interest. The 4 years worth of support money itself is
tied up permanently at VSI and cannot be invested elsewhere in the
customer's company.
With a normal 5-year support contract, you gain the benefits of the
5-year costs over the 5-year contract period and at the end of the
5-year period, there's no outstanding money at VSI.
In this case, you would have 4 years worth of costs permanently tied
up at VSI as an effectively interest-free loan and at the end of the
5-year period, you would _still_ have an additional 4 years worth of
costs permanently tied up at VSI.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
Well ...

The difference is between the point of view between the techies
and the bean-counters. Which one do you think has the greatest
influence with the C-level execs?

Exactly. This needs looking at from the accountant's point of view.
And if you make the costs too great, then the motivation to move to
another operating system just becomes greater.
From an accountant's point of view, it's the 4-year permanent loan
of your company's money to VSI that would draw attention.

And let6s not forget the government (US at least) that some people
still like to claim is a major customer. There is not such thing
as a 5 year contract. Only 1 year contracts with possible renewal
if the funding is made available for the next fiscal year. I once
worked for a company that sang and danced (and made a lot of press
releases) about a multi-million dollar long term contract to provide
Computer and networking devices. I think it lasted about 2 years
and maybe 10% of the expected revenue before everything in the
catalog showed up on the GSA list at much cheaper prices and less
paperwork. At the end of that fiscal year the contract was not
renewed. That particular contractor (the last one I worked for)
went out of the business completely and shut down the division
that had sold it.

bill

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 08:15:27 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

I too was confused after Simon had pointed out the loophole. I think
that you should have written

In the first year, the customer pays Y for a five-year license.

Every year after that, the customer pays X to get his current license
extended for another year.

Maybe X = Y/5.

Of course, technically, it would be a new license every year, valid for
five years, and replacing the older license, but the customer wouldn't
actually have to replace it every year.

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:02:28 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

I too was confused after Simon had pointed out the loophole. I think
that you should have written
In the first year, the customer pays Y for a five-year license.
Every year after that, the customer pays X to get his current license
extended for another year.
Maybe X = Y/5.
Of course, technically, it would be a new license every year, valid for
five years, and replacing the older license, but the customer wouldn't
actually have to replace it every year.

Yes.

It is simply a way that enables VSI to use the ongoing subscription
model and for customers to know that they have 4-5 years
to find a solution in case of a disaster.

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.

And the previous license becomes invalid.

Arne

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 13:14:22 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

How will that happen, technically?

Jan-Erik Söderholm

2021-04-23 13:16:40 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

How will that happen, technically?

Note that it this was a suggestion from Arne, not something
suggested or existing from VSI. But invalidating licenses is
usually through the expiration date on the PAK.

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 13:37:16 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

How will that happen, technically?

Note that it this was a suggestion from Arne, not something
suggested or existing from VSI. But invalidating licenses is
usually through the expiration date on the PAK.

So one would have 5 valid licenses at a time?

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:40:25 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

How will that happen, technically?

Note that it this was a suggestion from Arne, not something
suggested or existing from VSI. But invalidating licenses is
usually through the expiration date on the PAK.

So one would have 5 valid licenses at a time?

Why not. VMS licenses is mostly a legal thing
not a technical thing.

Or VSI add a begin date, issue 1 year licenses,
send 5 with the first buy of 5 and 1 with every
renewal if they really want to bother.

Arne

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:17:52 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

How will that happen, technically?

Same way they prevent a license from being used on
multiple separate systems today.

:-)

It is a legal thing not a technical thing.

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-23 13:20:06 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

I too was confused after Simon had pointed out the loophole. I think
that you should have written
    In the first year, the customer pays Y for a five-year license.
    Every year after that, the customer pays X to get his current license
    extended for another year.
Maybe X = Y/5.
Of course, technically, it would be a new license every year, valid for
five years, and replacing the older license, but the customer wouldn't
actually have to replace it every year.

Yes.
It is simply a way that enables VSI to use the ongoing subscription
model and for customers to know that they have 4-5 years
to find a solution in case of a disaster.

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

I wouldn't agree with this. The expiration of the old license should
remain what it was when the license was issued. Expiring it earlier
would be a violation of a contract and probably of dubious legality.

bill

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 13:43:18 UTC

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

Some people can really make even simple things complicated.

Call it an extension and they are receiving a new license that
replaces the old one with a note that the new one can only be
legally used if the old one is not used.

I am pretty sure that it can be done legally.

Arne

Bill Gunshannon

2021-04-23 14:01:26 UTC

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.

Some people can really make even simple things complicated.
Call it an extension and they are receiving a new license that
replaces the old one with a note that the new one can only be
legally used if the old one is not used.

That's how I would see it. But I would be against forcing the
customer to make the change on anything but their own schedule.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
I am pretty sure that it can be done legally.

If the new license does not try to modify the old license it
should be perfectly legal.

bill

Dave Froble

2021-04-23 14:52:15 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
So I have an alternative suggestion that maybe both VSI and
* 5 year licenses
* rolling subscription
* every year the customer pays X and get a new license
for 5 years

I too was confused after Simon had pointed out the loophole. I think
that you should have written
In the first year, the customer pays Y for a five-year license.
Every year after that, the customer pays X to get his current license
extended for another year.
Maybe X = Y/5.
Of course, technically, it would be a new license every year, valid for
five years, and replacing the older license, but the customer wouldn't
actually have to replace it every year.

Yes.
It is simply a way that enables VSI to use the ongoing subscription
model and for customers to know that they have 4-5 years
to find a solution in case of a disaster.

Actually, when you pay for 1 year in 2022, you get a license valid for 5
years, starting and ending one year later than the previous license.

Yep.
And the previous license becomes invalid.
Arne

Here is the problem with these suggestions.

A 5 year window, or any such window, isn't near enough. VMS has proven
to be very robust. I can still run some things on an old VAX. Our
applications began development back in the 1970s, and are still doing
the job, with continuing enhancements. But, except for the problem of
performance, they would still run on that old VAX.

So, our customers depend, more now than ever, for the applications to
basically run the company operations. There is no fallback plan B. If
those applications stopped, the company would not survive. Way too much
automation today to ever attempt to run the company without the
applications.

Up until now, we were able to assure the customers that even if VMS
stopped being supported, their computers would still run, basically
forever, for any reasonable definition of "forever". At least there
would be no fixed time limit for seeking alternatives. But if that
changes, then there is no longer that guarantee. Don't know about
others, but, I find that unacceptable.

My feeling is that someone at VSI got some wild hair up his behind about
people not paying to use VMS. Personally, I feel this is not a problem.
I may have mentioned in the past that all our customers pay for
support. We tell them to do so. They will never use it. If any issue
comes up, we would do the research and interface with VSI. The
customer's paying for support is to support VSI's work, and I'm thinking
any reasonable commercial users of VMS will realize the need to do so.
But maybe I'm an idealist and wrong.

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

Arne Vajhøj

2021-04-23 15:29:00 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
- you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 5 year in 2026
* you pay for 5 year in 2031
* you pay for 5 year in 2021
* you pay for 1 year in 2022
* you pay for 1 year in 2023
....
* you pay for 1 year in 2035

For the users that are willing to run something unsupported
and with no future, then a non-expiring license is the only solution
that will make them happy.

But there are also users (and I suspect many more users than the
previous category) that see no support and no future as a risk
that would warrant a migration.

If those users got 4-5 years guarantee, then they had time to either
see someone pickup the pieces or start a migration project in case
noone did.

Note that VSI going under and noone picking up would put VMS users in
a much worse situation than VMS VAX users when VMS VAX and VAX HW went
out of support.

Arne

Simon Clubley

2021-04-23 17:29:53 UTC

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸j
For the users that are willing to run something unsupported
and with no future, then a non-expiring license is the only solution
that will make them happy.
But there are also users (and I suspect many more users than the
previous category) that see no support and no future as a risk
that would warrant a migration.

They may also have compliance issues where they have to show that
the installed systems are supported from a security point of view
so that if a major security issue suddenly shows up, they know it
will get fixed quickly and within a specified period of time.

That will not happen if there is no longer any support.

Simon.

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

Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)

2021-04-23 15:48:15 UTC