Change to Patch services effective September 18, 2010

[Doug Phillips]

I find nothing that changes the restrictions on the patches themselves; only "a change in the way that Patch content is accessed."

Since I can no longer access the patches, I can't see if the patch copyright notices have been changed to restrict the application of patches to support contract customers. The copyrights on the patches I have say "Valid license from HP and/or its subsidiaries required for possession, use, or copying."

IANAL but I would think having a valid OpenVMS license should satisfy the legal question about whether one is or is not entitled to patch a buggy system so that it works as advertised.

I still see no official statement from HP that actually details this policy change or states that security patches will continue to be publicly available. And, as Graham Burley has pointed out, security patches are often dependent upon other patches.

Looking at the apparent depth of planning that went into this new policy, and how thoughtfully it has been executed, I wonder if HP might have put their SAPS conversion team in charge of this conversion, too. :)

[Graham Burley]

> I can't see if the patch copyright notices have been changed

They haven't.

[Jeffrey Goodwin]

>IANAL but I would think having a valid OpenVMS license should satisfy the legal question about whether one is or is not entitled to patch a buggy system so that it works as advertised.

HP software comes with a 90 day warranty. I know many people equate the license language in the patch to having a license PAK, but I've never read it that way.

It is possible that you might be entitled to fixes based on an implied warranty that would supercede the express warranty. These warranty laws differ greatly in various jurisdictions. For example, my state in the US only allows an implied warranty on consumer goods.

-Jeff

[Doug Phillips]

>> HP software comes with a 90 day warranty.

This is *full* support, beyond just patches.

>> I know many people equate the license language in the patch to having a license PAK, but I've never read it that way.
<<
Since patches are not individually licensed, it would be reasonable to believe the wording says that the product being patched must be licensed since the patch becomes a part of that product.

>> It is possible that you might be entitled to fixes based on an implied warranty that would supercede the express warranty. These warranty laws differ greatly in various jurisdictions. For example, my state in the US only allows an implied warranty on consumer goods.
<<
It would be more possible that one would be entitled to patches based on the policy in effect at the time the software (license) was purchased. Since the official legalize regarding updates that I've found talks about dash versus dot updates, and doesn't address bug fixes, precedent should rule.

The dearth of detailed policy statements and HP's apparent lack of planning prior to making this change is underwhelming.

[Ian Miller.]

If you email openvms.programs at hp asking about the opensource porting systems they can tell you more.

[Ian Miller.]

an item on the HP opensource porting systems

http://www.openvms.org/stories.php?story=10/06/02/1513268

[Doug Phillips]

ian>>If you email openvms.programs at hp asking about the opensource porting systems they can tell you more.
>>

More about the new patch restriction policy? Seems a bit strange.

Here's an interesting exercise:

go here:
http://h71000.www7.hp.com/openvms/index.html

Look down the left frame under "OpenVMS Software," find "Software Licensing" and click that link. Isn't that informative?

Now, pick a recent OpenVMS SPD and find the link for licensing information. Look familiar?

I haven't tried the SPD's other suggestion to "contact your local HP sales office" for licensing information but based upon my past experience with doing that I'll pass for now.

[Ian Miller.]

Doug - if you mean does reporting broken links via http://h71000.www7.hp.com/fb_business.html work then yes it does.

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] yes it does.

I've had such "feedback" forms send my
complaints into the Memory Hole in recent
times. Have they (all) been fixed?

> [...] the HP opensource porting systems

Great. And if I didn't need a big pile of
assorted infrastructure to get anything done,
then it might be more practical to walk up to
some virgin system somewhere and try to "port
and test Open Source applications". The
reason I bought IA64 systems was not that the
old TestDrive systems satisfied my every need
(until they disappeared).

[Ian Miller.]

Steven, have you looked at the HP Open Source porting systems which are now available?
If you have and they do not meet your requirements then perhaps something could be done about that.