f



VLF: The 35th Anniversary Communique from the VMS Liberation Front

http://is.gd/Party_For_Everybody

Dear comp.os.vms collegiates,

Our most cordial greetings.

This is the '35th Anniversary of VMS' Communique from the DELTA:: Node
of the VMS Liberation Front, the Vernon Preservation Underground, on
this august Thursday, the 25th of October 2012.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festschrift

Our contribution to the 35th Anniversary 'Festschrift' for Vernon is
initially comprised of the following four releases:

LiBREVMS.LMFGEN.OpenVMS.Tru64.OSF1.ULTRIX.v1.2.WinALL.x86.x64.KEYGEN-VLF

Stromasys.CHARON-VAX_Xx_66x0.v4.0.Build.122-04.Retail.WinALL.x86.x64.Cracked-VLF

Stromasys.CHARON-VAX_Xx_66x0.v4.1.Build.134-02.Retail.Win7.W2K8.x86.x64.Cracked-VLF

Stromasys.CHARON-AXP_4100_DS_ES_GS.v4.1.Build.129-04.Retail.WinALL.x64.Cracked-VLF

They can be downloaded from the Usenet Binaries Newsgroup:

alt.binaries.warez

https://www.binsearch.info/?q=%22-VLF%22

And examined, at your discretion, though the VMS Liberation Front make
no presumption that any of the comp.os.vms collegiate would be inclined,
by ethic, to so do.

However, the exigent relevance of, and the context, motivation, and
purpose for, these releases can be readily apprised, without compromise,
in this comprehensive NFO text file:

http://is.gd/LiBREVMS

We trust that the collegiate will be quaffing quality lagered products
in celebration of the grand occasion of the 35th Anniversary of our
beloved VMS and will be declaring solemn oaths and proposing bold toasts
to the next 35 years; the VLF certainly will be.

We thank the comp.os.vms collegiate for their attention.

Best regards,

Subcommandante BYPASS and Subcommandante XDelta
The VMS Liberation Front - DELTA:: Node - In VMS We Trust
http://dee.su/liberte mailto:vlf@hush.com https://forms.hush.com/vlf

$!-------------------------- damn straight ---------------------------!$
$ opprobrium/level=kittens/mode=conniptions/input=VLF:/output=NL:     !$
$!--------------------------- enough said ----------------------------!$
0
vlf (63)
10/24/2012 10:22:14 PM
comp.os.vms 21904 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

24 Replies
15809 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 51

In article <espg88tnbr6je54mp7qgc5iathfbe0o1iq@4ax.com>, Subcommandante
XDelta <vlf@star.enet.dec.com> writes: 

> They can be downloaded from the Usenet Binaries Newsgroup:
> 
> alt.binaries.warez
> 
> https://www.binsearch.info/?q=%22-VLF%22
> 
> And examined, at your discretion, though the VMS Liberation Front make
> no presumption that any of the comp.os.vms collegiate would be inclined,
> by ethic, to so do.

I don't know who this crank is, but he shows a huge lack of 
understanding of the VMS mindset.  We VMS enthusiasts do not download 
stuff from warez groups like script kiddies (and we know how to spell).  
We might, and do, criticize HP's and other owners' handling of VMS, but 
we seek understanding, not revolt, most of all because we know that 
there is no right to VMS and that the hobbyist programme exists merely 
because of good will.

Remember what happened to the PDP hobbyist license and why?

Maybe this Ch� wannabee is actually someone intent on destroying VMS and 
hoping that someone will actually react to his nonsense.

His last revelations were posted elsewhere, on a server of not the best 
repute, but nevertheless even from there were removed, presumably due to 
some complaint.

Someone said that on the internet, no-one knows you're a dog, but in 
this case we do.  Wuff wuff!

0
helbig (5064)
10/25/2012 5:14:48 PM
On 12-10-25 13:14, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> I don't know who this crank is, but he shows a huge lack of 
> understanding of the VMS mindset.  We VMS enthusiasts do not download 
> stuff from warez groups like script kiddies


At this point in time, If you intend to use VMS for a long time, you
should consider keeping a copy of the warez LMF pak generator even if
you don't use it.

HP pulled the ability to access patches. They could also pull the
ability to get hobbyist licences some years down the road. And if you
live in an area where there is no DECUS,  getting hobbyist licences may
be a hassle.

0
10/25/2012 9:49:01 PM
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:14:48 +0000 (UTC),
helbig@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)
wrote:

>In article <espg88tnbr6je54mp7qgc5iathfbe0o1iq@4ax.com>, Subcommandante
>XDelta <vlf@star.enet.dec.com> writes: 
>
>> They can be downloaded from the Usenet Binaries Newsgroup:
>> 
>> alt.binaries.warez
>> 
>> https://www.binsearch.info/?q=%22-VLF%22
>> 
>> And examined, at your discretion, though the VMS Liberation Front make
>> no presumption that any of the comp.os.vms collegiate would be inclined,
>> by ethic, to so do.
>
>I don't know who this crank is, but he shows a huge lack of 
>understanding of the VMS mindset.  We VMS enthusiasts do not download 

Herr Helbig,

Whilst we were not anticipating a response from you, we were expecting
one; anyway thank you for reviewing our 35th Anniversary Communique!

We (there are two of us) are cranky, very cranky, but are not cranks.

The VLF does have a MANiFESTO, but that does not make us cranks, OTOH:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/manifesto-coming-along-fine,750/

At least we finished ours in time for 25.10!

>stuff from warez groups like script kiddies (and we know how to spell).  
>We might, and do, criticize HP's and other owners' handling of VMS, but 
>we seek understanding, not revolt, most of all because we know that 
>there is no right to VMS and that the hobbyist programme exists merely 
>because of good will.

The VLF acknowledge the good will and good efforts of those within and
without HP that have prosecuted the cause of the Hobbyist program all
these years, no criticism from us at all, rather deep respect!

There is nothing to 'understand', the motivations of certain factions in
HP management and their abuse of the VMS asset is transparent to us, in
the deconstruction.

Do you have any HP shares Herr Helbig? - If not, we'd recommend
cultivating a tranche, become a part-owner of HP, and start to sort out
the management problem.

IIRC, you work for a Stock Exchange that uses VMS for their BCS?

Have a few 35th Anniversary Beers with some of the movers and shakers at
the Exchange, encourage the company to invest in HP shares, and become
part-owners of HP, very angry owners, since the viablity of their VMS
systems is under siege and start to sort out the management problem.

It might be a close shave, but it can be done.

Take a leaf out of the book of Victor Kiam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39pEOgMt9g8

HP does not exist for the convenience of Microsoft.

>Remember what happened to the PDP hobbyist license and why?
>
>Maybe this Ch� wannabee is actually someone intent on destroying VMS and 
>hoping that someone will actually react to his nonsense.

1. We do not seek praise.

2, We welcome critiques of our manifesto and methods, so long as it is
reflected and refracted, with zero-bullsh%t analytical rigour, upon the
last two decades of VMS history and, in particular, the last decade.

>His last revelations were posted elsewhere, on a server of not the best 
>repute, but nevertheless even from there were removed, presumably due to 
>some complaint.

There is always someone from the peanut gallery!

However we are curious as to what you've sleuthed, since we only post
VLF Communiques to comp.os.vms, and do not cross-post anywhere else.

>Someone said that on the internet, no-one knows you're a dog, but in 
>this case we do.  Wuff wuff!

http://chrisabraham.com/2009/01/05/on-the-internet-nobody-knows-youre-a-dog/

With reference to our releases posted in alt.binaries.warez:

If one is not familiar downloading from Usenet Binaries Newsgroups, this
is a good guide:

http://www.slyck.com/Newsgroups_Guide

Always download from the Usenet Binaries Newsgroups using an SSL
tunneling enabled service, always download the PAR recovery files as
well.

If you use Usenet pretty much exclusively for text based discussions,
then consider also a pre-paid service such as what Astraweb, as one
example, provides:

http://www.news.astraweb.com/plans.html

There is no time expiration of the credits, only download quota
exhaustion.

If you (fair enough) distrust such releases as ours, but wish to
critically and forensically examine them anyway, but not use them, then
download, unpack, but do not install, and check the components using
these web-tools:

https://www.virustotal.com/
http://virusscan.jotti.org/

You are looking for consistent, meta-consistent, detection of any
threats; though the VLF advises that our releases are not trojan horses
for windows root-kits.
0
vlf (63)
10/25/2012 11:46:00 PM
On 12-10-25 19:46, Subcommandante XDelta wrote:

> Do you have any HP shares Herr Helbig? - If not, we'd recommend
> cultivating a tranche, become a part-owner of HP, and start to sort out
> the management problem.


HP has already sorted out the BCS problems. It will be replaced by x86
as well as ARM commodity servers running Linux/Windows.  Getting HP to
reverse that decision and change plans once more would, at this point in
time, be counterproductive.

Instead of buying shares in HP, it might be better to get HP to agree to
sell VMS (or perhaps spin off 51% of VMS).

What would it take for HP to opensource VMS ?  Since they have already
written off BCS and dwindled development to a bare minimum, would HP
really lose anything by opensourcing VMS ? They could still issue
patches to support the couple of new itanium servers left to do.

Existing customers would still pay for support (and this is the only
thing HP is still interested in anyways for what is left of BCS).

And opensourcing VMS would not accelerate the churn, if at all, it might
reduce it.



0
10/26/2012 12:00:57 AM
JF Mezei schrieb:

> What would it take for HP to opensource VMS ?  Since they have already
> written off BCS and dwindled development to a bare minimum, would HP
> really lose anything by opensourcing VMS ? 

It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
Remember that IBM has refused several times to opensource OS/2,
for exactly that reason.
For software as complex as those OSs it would take a significant
effort to disentangle potential third party contributions. There's
little incentive to do so for OSs close to or beyond EOL.
As for HP and the few greenhorns nowadays maintaining VMS,
there's probably not much knowledge left to do the job.

> And opensourcing VMS would not accelerate the churn, if at all, it might
> reduce it.

Given the way opensource development works these days,
it probably would go the way of OpenSolaris or OpenOffice.
Or, even more probable, nobody would care, because the task
is just too big.

0
M.Kraemer (2048)
10/26/2012 1:19:52 AM
On 12-10-25 21:19, Michael Kraemer wrote:

> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.

You mean to say that Hoff didn't write VMS all by himself and copied his
homework from other students in class ? :-) :-)

If there are portions bound by copyright, then HP would have contracts
that grant them limited use of certain technologies to be embedded in
VMS. It shouldn't be hard to find the drawer that contains those
contracts. And most companies that did that no longer exist anyways (for
instance, the DHCP server and GUI management tools came from Join which
no longer exist)

X/Motif is interesting because it is proprietary when embeded in a
commercial system, but opensourced when embedded in an opensource
system. This is why it is available on the hobbyist systems, but for
commercial sales, HP has to hand over royalty money to X consortium or
whoever.

They could progressively release VMS portions. For instance, release TPU
right away if they know it has no liens to other companies. Meanwhile,
you look into if anyone inherited the IP from Join.COM or if the DHCP
server is now considered public domain.

it may take a couple of years before the whole VMS environment is
available as open source. But if they started now, it would give clear
guidance.


0
10/26/2012 3:29:15 AM
In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, M.Kraemer@gsi.de says...
> 
> JF Mezei schrieb:
> 
> > What would it take for HP to opensource VMS ?  Since they have already
> > written off BCS and dwindled development to a bare minimum, would HP
> > really lose anything by opensourcing VMS ? 
> 
> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
> Remember that IBM has refused several times to opensource OS/2,
> for exactly that reason.

Of course OS/2 was actually a joint project between IBM and Microsoft 
(There were several versions of "Microsoft OS/2", v1.3 being the last 
IIRC). 

Windows NT was originally going to be the next version of OS/2 until 
Windows 3.x took off and Microsoft decided to change direction. I think 
its OS/2 environment subsystem survived until Windows XP (NT 5.1).

So of course for IBM to open-source OS/2 they'd have to get Microsoft to 
agree as well.

I expect it would be a lot easier for HP to open-source OpenVMS. 
Anything important was probably written by DEC or has been open-sourced 
by third-parties already (eg, CDE+Motif).
0
dgsoftnz (11)
10/26/2012 11:58:13 PM
In article <508a038c$0$38722$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>, 
jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
> 
> On 12-10-25 21:19, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> 
> > It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
> 
> You mean to say that Hoff didn't write VMS all by himself and copied his
> homework from other students in class ? :-) :-)
> 
> If there are portions bound by copyright, then HP would have contracts
> that grant them limited use of certain technologies to be embedded in
> VMS. It shouldn't be hard to find the drawer that contains those
> contracts. And most companies that did that no longer exist anyways (for
> instance, the DHCP server and GUI management tools came from Join which
> no longer exist)
> 
> X/Motif is interesting because it is proprietary when embeded in a
> commercial system, but opensourced when embedded in an opensource
> system. This is why it is available on the hobbyist systems, but for
> commercial sales, HP has to hand over royalty money to X consortium or
> whoever.

Actually, as of a few days ago Motif was released under the LGPL making 
it open source everywhere:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/motif/

CDE was also released under the LGPL back in August (with a possibility 
of going MIT licensed in the future) and people have been busy cleaning 
it up and porting it to modern 64bit Linux and *BSD systems:
http://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/wiki/Home/
0
dgsoftnz (11)
10/27/2012 12:06:53 AM
In article <MPG.2af5ecc3d15b72b9989687@news.zx.net.nz>,
 David Goodwin <dgsoftnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <508a038c$0$38722$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>, 
> jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...
> > 
> > On 12-10-25 21:19, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> > 
> > > It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
> > 
> > You mean to say that Hoff didn't write VMS all by himself and copied his
> > homework from other students in class ? :-) :-)
> > 
> > If there are portions bound by copyright, then HP would have contracts
> > that grant them limited use of certain technologies to be embedded in
> > VMS. It shouldn't be hard to find the drawer that contains those
> > contracts.

In practice it might be quite hard to find "the drawer that contains 
those contracts".  When HP took over Compaq they had to ring customers 
to find out which of their staff were working where.

> > And most companies that did that no longer exist anyways (for
> > instance, the DHCP server and GUI management tools came from Join which
> > no longer exist)

Quite likely bought from receivers by patent sharks.

> > X/Motif is interesting because it is proprietary when embeded in a
> > commercial system, but opensourced when embedded in an opensource
> > system. This is why it is available on the hobbyist systems, but for
> > commercial sales, HP has to hand over royalty money to X consortium or
> > whoever.
> 
> Actually, as of a few days ago Motif was released under the LGPL making 
> it open source everywhere:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/motif/
> 
> CDE was also released under the LGPL back in August (with a possibility 
> of going MIT licensed in the future) and people have been busy cleaning 
> it up and porting it to modern 64bit Linux and *BSD systems:
> http://sourceforge.net/p/cdesktopenv/wiki/Home/

How does that work in practice?  Would VMS Engineering need to abandon 
existing sources and grab the LGPL ones instead?  The latter could turn 
into something of a porting exercise.

-- 
Paul Sture
0
nospam9740 (2260)
10/27/2012 12:00:21 PM
On 10/26/2012 7:58 PM, David Goodwin wrote:
> In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, M.Kraemer@gsi.de says...
>>
>> JF Mezei schrieb:
>>
>>> What would it take for HP to opensource VMS ?  Since they have already
>>> written off BCS and dwindled development to a bare minimum, would HP
>>> really lose anything by opensourcing VMS ?
>>
>> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
>> Remember that IBM has refused several times to opensource OS/2,
>> for exactly that reason.
>
> Of course OS/2 was actually a joint project between IBM and Microsoft
> (There were several versions of "Microsoft OS/2", v1.3 being the last
> IIRC).
>
> Windows NT was originally going to be the next version of OS/2 until
> Windows 3.x took off and Microsoft decided to change direction. I think
> its OS/2 environment subsystem survived until Windows XP (NT 5.1).
>
> So of course for IBM to open-source OS/2 they'd have to get Microsoft to
> agree as well.
>
> I expect it would be a lot easier for HP to open-source OpenVMS.
> Anything important was probably written by DEC or has been open-sourced
> by third-parties already (eg, CDE+Motif).
>

I don't think it's that simple or easy!  VMS makes use of intellectual 
property (Patents and/or Copyrights) that is licensed by third parties
0
rgilbert88 (4439)
10/27/2012 4:06:15 PM
Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

(snip)
> I don't think it's that simple or easy!  VMS makes use of intellectual 
> property (Patents and/or Copyrights) that is licensed by third parties


I would guess most of the patents have expired by now. 

Not the copyrights, though.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
10/27/2012 4:09:04 PM
On 12-10-27 08:00, Paul Sture wrote:

> How does that work in practice?  Would VMS Engineering need to abandon 
> existing sources and grab the LGPL ones instead?  The latter could turn 
> into something of a porting exercise.


Since X/Motif/CDE on VS are ancient versions, I doubt that there would
be much trouble getting some form of consent to make those LGPL or
whatever to allow VMS to become open sourced.



0
10/28/2012 4:03:01 AM
On 12-10-27 12:06, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> I don't think it's that simple or easy!  VMS makes use of intellectual 
> property (Patents and/or Copyrights) that is licensed by third parties

If you have signed a deal to allow Digital to use some routines you work
in VMS in the 1990s, wouldn't you, or the owner of VMS want to have that
deal updated after change of ownership to allow the new owner to issue a
new version of VMS ?

If you look at .H files in VMS, in the case of the X window stuff, there
are clear messages that say that portions are copyright of the X
consortium (or whatever). In fact, some even include HP and others in
the copyright that lists the contributors of X.

I'd say it shouldn't be very hard to find the list of modules that used
by permission and can't be made opensourced without owner's consent.

From there, it is a matter of finding the owner of that IP to get their
consent.

Now, open sourcing VMS may not mean open sourcing various applications
on it. If the DHCP server can't be freed, then don't include it in the
open source listings. There are plenty of open sourced DHCP servers that
could be ported to VMS if the dead one won't allow to be open sourced.

Consider that the operating system itself was written by Digital at a
time when buying IP from others was not common since there were no others.

Video drivers had been reverse engineered by our esteemed FredK (rip)
and should not be tied to restrictions by the video card manufacturer.


0
10/28/2012 4:13:13 AM
In article <k6h0uv$mmt$1@dont-email.me>,
 glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> > I don't think it's that simple or easy!  VMS makes use of intellectual 
> > property (Patents and/or Copyrights) that is licensed by third parties
> 
> 
> I would guess most of the patents have expired by now. 
> 
> Not the copyrights, though.

Copyrights can get murky too.  Back in 1995 I downloaded an intro to 
TCP/IP from somewhere on the net, and the following year I found the 
exact same article on DSNlink, but this one had a Digital copyright 
notice.  I have no idea where this article originated, but it seemed to 
be standard practice that anything published on DSNlink had the Digital 
copyright notice.

-- 
Paul Sture
0
nospam9740 (2260)
10/28/2012 1:59:19 PM
In article <nospam-A66E9C.14591928102012@news.chingola.ch>,
	Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> writes:
> In article <k6h0uv$mmt$1@dont-email.me>,
>  glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> (snip)
>> > I don't think it's that simple or easy!  VMS makes use of intellectual 
>> > property (Patents and/or Copyrights) that is licensed by third parties
>> 
>> 
>> I would guess most of the patents have expired by now. 
>> 
>> Not the copyrights, though.
> 
> Copyrights can get murky too.  Back in 1995 I downloaded an intro to 
> TCP/IP from somewhere on the net, and the following year I found the 
> exact same article on DSNlink, but this one had a Digital copyright 
> notice.  I have no idea where this article originated, but it seemed to 
> be standard practice that anything published on DSNlink had the Digital 
> copyright notice.
 
One of the facets of the, now infamous, AT&T Unix lawsuit hinged on the
fact that after incorporating BSD Networking (and some other parts) into
SYSTEM V AT&T had removed all of the Berkeley Copyrights and inserted
AT&T Copyrights.  It seems that someone had been told AT&T distributed
code could have  nothing but AT&T Copyrights so an overzealous editor
went thru all the source making the appropriate changes.  :-)

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
0
billg999 (2588)
10/28/2012 3:28:04 PM
Bill Gunshannon <billg999@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

(snip)

> One of the facets of the, now infamous, AT&T Unix lawsuit hinged on the
> fact that after incorporating BSD Networking (and some other parts) into
> SYSTEM V AT&T had removed all of the Berkeley Copyrights and inserted
> AT&T Copyrights.  It seems that someone had been told AT&T distributed
> code could have  nothing but AT&T Copyrights so an overzealous editor
> went thru all the source making the appropriate changes.  :-)

I might have called that making the inappropriate changes.

-- glen
0
gah (12851)
10/28/2012 10:07:49 PM
In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes:
> 
> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.

   It has been clearly reported many times, by people who would know,
   that VMS contains IP that DEC, Compaq, and now HP, doesn't own.

0
koehler2 (8314)
10/31/2012 2:37:49 PM
In article <4ZdPWlt2gtQ7@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes:
>> 
>> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
> 
>    It has been clearly reported many times, by people who would know,
>    that VMS contains IP that DEC, Compaq, and now HP, doesn't own.

So did Unix (as regards AT&T, not HP :-)  and the solution was to remove
the offending parts and let the rest go Open Source.  I would assume that
those portions would be about as significant ans the AT&T parts of Unix
were and could be re-engineered by people out here.

Of course, this still begs the issue that it is unlikely HP would ever
open source VMS in the first place, but it is fun to shoot down strawmen.

bill
 

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
0
billg999 (2588)
10/31/2012 3:30:04 PM
On 10/31/2012 9:37 AM, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes:
>>
>> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
>
>     It has been clearly reported many times, by people who would know,
>     that VMS contains IP that DEC, Compaq, and now HP, doesn't own.
>

But no one in-the-know that I've read has said what that IP is or how 
deep it goes. What I've read leads me to believe it's not in the kernel 
or within any vital component, but mostly in the upper layers. I'd be 
willing to read any links you might have that explain it clearer.

One question is: What would VMS look like if it didn't have that IP?

The bigger question is: Would there be any advantage to HP if they 
released VMS to open source?

0
dphill46 (619)
10/31/2012 3:48:48 PM
On 2012-10-31 16:30, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <4ZdPWlt2gtQ7@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <k6cofp$f3d$1@solani.org>, Michael Kraemer <M.Kraemer@gsi.de> writes:
>>>
>>> It may well be that they don't own all of the IP hidden in VMS.
>>
>>     It has been clearly reported many times, by people who would know,
>>     that VMS contains IP that DEC, Compaq, and now HP, doesn't own.
>
> So did Unix (as regards AT&T, not HP :-)  and the solution was to remove
> the offending parts and let the rest go Open Source.  I would assume that
> those portions would be about as significant ans the AT&T parts of Unix
> were and could be re-engineered by people out here.

I don't know, but I think that is an overly optimistic assumption.

> Of course, this still begs the issue that it is unlikely HP would ever
> open source VMS in the first place, but it is fun to shoot down strawmen.

Also true, on both accounts... :-)

	Johnny

0
bqt2 (1410)
10/31/2012 5:26:37 PM
On 12-10-31 11:48, Doug Phillips wrote:

> The bigger question is: Would there be any advantage to HP if they 
> released VMS to open source?


Lessen the bad PR that will come when HP confirms that Itanium is dead
end and that the OS on it are not being ported.
0
10/31/2012 11:56:09 PM
On 10/31/2012 7:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 12-10-31 11:48, Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>> The bigger question is: Would there be any advantage to HP if they
>> released VMS to open source?
>
>
> Lessen the bad PR that will come when HP confirms that Itanium is dead
> end and that the OS on it are not being ported.
>

It's not that simple JF!  VMS uses intellectual property owned by
several parties.  H-P is only one of the parties involved.
0
rgilbert88 (4439)
11/1/2012 12:31:24 AM
On 12-10-31 20:31, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:

> It's not that simple JF!  VMS uses intellectual property owned by
> several parties.  H-P is only one of the parties involved.

So you don't release source code from the modules that are hindered by
copyright.

Over the years, I have seen that argument put forth many many times. But
never any authoritative list of what portions of VMS are limited by
copyright.

I know of X, and the old DHCP server.  X is now open sourced. And you
can get a open sourced DHCP server easily, so if VMS is relased open
sourced with the JOIN DHCP server, it would be no big deal.

I bet you that the original VMS is not hindered by such limitations and
that HP could open source enough of VMS to get you to the $ prompt and
the standard VMS utilities.

Does VMS still make use of mini RDB stuff for some files ?

Obviously, there are many layered products which would be limited by
other people's copyright.

Cosnidering that a few years ago, HP did consider porting VMS (and HP-UX
and NSK) to x86, it would appear to me that this exercise would have
included finding e list of copyright dependendencies.
0
11/1/2012 1:27:42 AM
Disclaimer> I'm only guessing, I don't have the legal expertise, nor the 
access to sources to even check anything...

On 2012-11-01 02:27, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 12-10-31 20:31, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>> It's not that simple JF!  VMS uses intellectual property owned by
>> several parties.  H-P is only one of the parties involved.
>
> So you don't release source code from the modules that are hindered by
> copyright.

Right. That is the easy part of the equation. But what would that be?

> Over the years, I have seen that argument put forth many many times. But
> never any authoritative list of what portions of VMS are limited by
> copyright.
>
> I know of X, and the old DHCP server.  X is now open sourced. And you
> can get a open sourced DHCP server easily, so if VMS is relased open
> sourced with the JOIN DHCP server, it would be no big deal.

Just because you have open sourced X it does not automatically mean that 
any code related to X is free. There might very well be parts of the X 
sources in VMS which are still not free, meaning that whole part would 
be difficult to get out.
DHCP - Considering that a native Unix DHCP server probably will not run 
straight off on VMS, this might not be as easy as you imply. Even more 
so with a DHCP client.

> I bet you that the original VMS is not hindered by such limitations and
> that HP could open source enough of VMS to get you to the $ prompt and
> the standard VMS utilities.

This is a rather big assumption on your part... Especially considering 
that DEC sold off a lot of stuff over the years.

> Does VMS still make use of mini RDB stuff for some files ?

No idea.

> Obviously, there are many layered products which would be limited by
> other people's copyright.

Right.

> Cosnidering that a few years ago, HP did consider porting VMS (and HP-UX
> and NSK) to x86, it would appear to me that this exercise would have
> included finding e list of copyright dependendencies.

No. DEC (Compaq/HP) already have the licenses. Porting the software to 
another platform would most likely not require a new license. It has 
almost nothing to do with the question of releasing the software.

	Johnny

0
bqt2 (1410)
11/1/2012 2:59:18 PM
Reply: