Wirt, Jon, and John;  after Jon on OpenMPE session @ HPW:

>>> "PA-RISC Platform Emulator"
>>>  * HP will allow emulator(s) to move forward
>>>   - HP will NOT create a PA-RISC emulator.
>>>   - If a PA-RISC emulator or emulators appear is up to
>>>     the 3rd party companies that may choose to do so.
>>>  * MPE license transfers and the creation of new
>>>    licenses will be available
>>>  * Fees and the process for licenses are still to be
>>>    determined
>>
>> ... the devil truly does lie in the details. ... if the
>> "fees and process for licenses" remains "still to be
>> determined", we haven't made any real progress since
>> November 15th, when an emulator was first proposed. No
>> one is going to do anything substantial until terms
>> that are deemed favorable to the community are set in
>> stone -- or at least in the blood of a half dozen
>> lawyers.
>
> You are, of course, correct. This message was delivered
> loud and clear to HP. They promised to address this
> short term. I would suggest that Jon Backus keep
> everyone updated on the progress. I'm willing to give
> them until Thanksgiving. If we do not see something
> reasonably concrete by then, I am going to assume this
> is just another attempt to stall any meaningful
> progress.

While I also agree that Wirt is correct about details on
"fees and the process for licenses" being critical, after
reflecting about everything we heard on OpenMPE issues
at HPW, I have to say I'm with Jon:  HPs publicly
stated willingness to allow not only the transfer of
existing licenses but also the creation of unlimited NEW
MPE licenses for an emulator really is a major positive
milestone.  I think most people will agree that the "new
licenses" part was absolutely the core issue that first
needed to be resolved in order to facilitate one or more
3rd parties starting on an emulator.  Certainly HP could
make that "YES" effectively a "NO" by then saying that
their license fee for each emulator would be $10,000...
But I think we're pretty safe in applying a "reasonable
person" test here;  i.e.:  Having once committed to the
above, they're not gonna do anything like that; if for no
other reason than they know it wouldn't fly with people
on this list...

So from my perspective it is indeed how long it takes to
work out acceptable details that is now the prime focus;
and the most urgent OpenMPE details are "fees & process"
for an emulator...  I am pretty much with John on this:
I would like to see a wrap and announcement of same in
the near term.  Given the substantial progress on OpenMPE
issues that was announced at HPW-LA, I might be able to
hang in there for three months if I have too...  but
John's "Thanksgiving" sounds preferable...  :-)

FOOTNOTE:  After Mike Paivinen presented the slide with
the "Fees and the process for licenses are still to be
determined" bullet at the HPW OpenMPE session, I remember
someone in the audience (think it was John Burke) adding
~"and that needs to be soon"...  After which I recall
Mike responded with "very soon".  So while that is still
one of those "phrases of matchless elasticity", as a
practical matter I think HP and MPE users are generally
in sync with what a reasonable definition of "very soon"
is in this case...

Ken Sletten