Zelik writes:
> Personally I think the brains @ HP would probably consider putting in the
> most major components of MPE into their licensing agreements.

They've clearly indicated that this is their intention.  I think you can
expect to see all of "FOS" unless there are specific sub-licensing issues
that prevent them from including something, and probably most of the
purchasable subsystems such as compilers and other development tools,
networking software, etc.

> I would also tend to believe that any third party emulator
> would also include the major "stuff" into their package.

This gets back to the terminology issue again.  In my world (and you can
argue amongst yourselves as to whether it has any connection to reality) the
term "emulator" is reserved for the type of software emulation of platform
hardware that I've been talking about.  In this kind of emulator, the HP
licensing terms mean we can't distribute *anything* with the emulator.  The
emulator is only useful if you also buy a license from HP to run MPE on it,
just as if it were a real HPe3000.

Some of the vendors (like Denkart with their MPUX product) may also refer to
their complete-replacement-from-scratch tools as "emulators", but in this
case the functionality of different MPE products blurs as these tools
generally don't distinguish between "MPE" and "NS" for example.  They
provide things like a replacement CI that knows some amount about some
number of MPE commands.  But no such environment can provide the potential
100%-compatible-with-no-recompile-required environment of a platform
emulator running the *real* MPE/iX operating system.

G.