Personally, I think the requirement of HP hardware is silly and totally
unenforceable, but can live with it if that is the best we can do. However,
from my soapbox which is completely independent from OpenMPE, Inc., I will
continue to push HP to give up on the whole licensing proposal as not worth
the effort required to administer.

I am MUCH MORE CONCERNED about the issue of license cost. No work will take
place on an emulator until this is nailed down, both timing and, even more
importantly, cost. If it is not priced reasonably, no work will take place
on an emulator at all. Ever.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan M. Backus [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PA-RISC Emulator
>
>
>         We seem to be getting back into emotional reactions
> rather then business
> reactions.  The same thing happened in the OpenMPE session.
> There started
> to be much debate about how wrong this requirement was but
> when the question
> was posed to the group of "emulator interested" people only about five
> percent had a business reaction of "We are NOT interested if
> the hardware
> MUST be HP."  The question isn't "Philosophically do you like the
> restriction?".  The question is would you rather that MPE
> dies if this is
> the only option?  Remember, HP owns MPE and has spent a fair
> amount of money
> on maintaining and enhancing it over the years and HP (the
> company has made
> their decision).  The people within HP that want to help us
> (AND THEY DO
> EXIST) must build a business case for allowing something like this to
> happen.  If part of that business case is a requirement that
> it run on HP
> hardware, and that requirement helps to allow it to happen,
> then I (and
> roughly 95% of the people in the OpenMPE session) consider that a
> "live-able" solution.
>
>         That is not to say that those of you that would
> refuse to use an emulated
> PA-RISC environment under these requirements are wrong, just
> a difference of
> what we are willing to accept and it's important to understand, from a
> business prospective, that difference.
>
> Thanx,
>         Jon