Keven wrote:

> 3rd paragraph
> >HP intends the new MPE/iX software license
> >to include certain MPE/iX, add-on subsystems. The full list
> >of bundled subsystems has not yet been determined.
>
> Would it be possible for OpenMPE to get and share a full list of
> subsystems in order to get feedback as to what subsystems the
> community has interest in?

OpenMPE does not have this list and neither does HP. It appeared that
nailing down a complete list was going to take longer than we felt
was an acceptable delay before releasing this document. We decided
to make the proposed new license terms public, even though we don't
have all of the questions answered yet.

> 4th paragraph
> >If the licensee, already running in an emulated environment,
> >desires to update
> >to a newer version of MPE/iX and/or its subsystems (even
> >running on the same
> >hardware) then the licensee must purchase a new version of
> >MPE/iX, which will include a new license.
>
> I'm lost a bit here. What new version of MPE/iX. After MPE
> 7.5 and maybe
> some patches, I have the impression that MPE will be frozen for time.
> Well, unless this is to cover things like OpenMPE gaining
> source rights to continue support and enhancements.

Well, there likely will be defect repairs between now and end of
HP support, and we intend to complete a few 2003 SIB items, so there
will be patches for MPE/iX and we may accumulate those patches into
another Powerpatch release. This has not yet been determined. However,
if we do have another Powerpatch release for MPE/iX then the above
paragraph states that you will need to buy it from HP for $500.

> 5th paragraph
> >Since the MPE/iX license is not transferable and
> >cannot be sublicensed, an emulator vendor cannot preload
> >MPE/iX on their
> >product, nor can they purchase an MPE/iX license in the name
> >of a customer.
> >However, emulator vendors may buy their own MPE/iX
> >license(s) and demonstrate the emulator using customer data.
>
> It would be nice for a vendor to walk in with a preloaded system for
> customers who are not technical.

I agree and so do the emulator vendors.  A problem with this is that
HP does not wish the emulator vendors to be official resellers, which
is what would be necessary for them to be able to buy MPE and resell
it to their customers. Also, HP desires the final end user (licensee)
to directly agree to the terms and conditions of the new MPE/iX
license.

> Yet a vendor could install the customer's copy of MPE for them.
> And even provide a "workshop" for the customer to visit the vendor
> with their software for testing.

I agree that this would be nice and we did try to make it work.

> >19. Why can't the new MPE license be transfered to a new owner,
> >    as can be done today?
>
> Obviously I don't understand what administration is involved.
> But I wonder about this. What is there to protect? This MPE
> is "AS-IS". No support or warranty.

HP is a large corporation and has assets to protect, as do all
large corporations. HP has some amount of liability for each copy
of MPE in use today. The potential liability is compensated by
the MPE revenue stream. After 10/31/03 a chunk of that revenue
stream vanishes but the liability exposure remains about the
same. After the end-of-support date all MPE related revenue is
gone but there still exists a liability potential with each
customers that relies on MPE in their business. So HP is trying
to better protect itself by selling and licensing MPE "AS-IS".
Also, HP is trying to reduce its internal costs to deliver MPE
so that we can make the price to customers as low as possible.
One way to keep the selling price low is to eliminate transfers
and refunds. There is an admin savings to us.

> Will the list of these MPE licenses be kept
> any better that that of the owners of original HP3000s?

I don't know. We don't do a good job today but I think it
will be better with this new license.

> Wirt mentioned the enforcability of these terms.
> Maybe these MPE version should only be available as CDs, with the
> customers info on the CD?
> [oops! now I'm trying to solve the problem I questioned at first]

Proposing solutions is fine too.  Thanks for the suggestion.

  Jeff