License

[dennis cooper]

I am converting an application from Alpha to Itanium. It uses a 3rd party ACP and object calls (PDS-SE-AXP) that has a separate perpetual license. The provider is no longer in business. The ACP and object library was converted via an HP Binary Translator. How can I move the license from Alpha OpenVMS to Itanium OpenVMS?

[Steven Schweda]

A software license is a legal agreement.
You're unlikely to get authoritative (or even
reliable) legal advice in this forum.

If the question is about how to move a PAK,
then the answer will be different, but,
knowing no details, my psychic powers are too
weak to tell me what might be necessary or
what might work.

Potentially useful, if you've lost the paper
PAK:

HELP LICENSE ISSUE

Copying the license data base and attacking
the copy (/DATABASE=filespec) can avoid some
annoyances.

[dennis cooper]

Thank you. The question is purely technical.

Does the 'HELP LICENSE ISSUE' provide complete PAK information to register the license on the Itanium OpenVMS?

Also, can you elaborate on 'attacking the copy'?

The Alpha is V7.1-1H2: the Itanium is V8.3-1H1.

[Robert Gezelter]

Dennis,

Moving the license is a simple question of exporting and re-importing the license, as has been noted.

The real question is whether the license will work on the Itanium system, and that answer is: Depends.

Depending on how the license is checked, it may check different things. If it actually checks that it is on an Alpha, then it would fail.

If the sources are unavailable, and the vendor is no longer extant, trying may be the only option.

Checking whether the no longer extant vendor left a source code escrow might be a good idea. The various "virtual Alpha" implementations might also be a sound fall-back plan.

- Bob Gezelter, http://www.rlgsc.com

[Steven Schweda]

> Does the 'HELP LICENSE ISSUE' provide
> complete PAK information [...]

No, but "LICENSE ISSUE" does. "HELP LICENSE
ISSUE" provides (pretty) complete information
on "LICENSE ISSUE".

> Also, can you elaborate on 'attacking the
> copy'?

Did you look at the HELP? Apparently not.

LICENSE

ISSUE

Produces a replica of a Product Authorization Key (PAK) that
is sent to a file or displayed on your terminal (the default).
If the terms and conditions of your license contract allow it,
you can then enter this PAK replica in the License Database of
another processor. When you enter LICENSE ISSUE, LMF disables
the license in the current License Database and marks the license
DISABLED. To enable a license that has been marked ISSUED, enter
LICENSE ENABLE.
[...]

All those LICENSE ISSUE and LICENSE ENABLE
commands add to the clutter in the license
data base history record. If you make a
copy and play with that, then all the
evidence vanishes when you delete the copy.

[Verne Britton]

A big problem (I hope someone can prove me wrong) is any Integrity license requires some IA64 keyword (there are several) in the OPTIONS field :-)


Verne

[Joseph Huber_1]

A translated program knows nothing about IA64, so it can't check for any IA64 license option, and the Alpha license should work.

(All legal implications put aside ...)

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] the Alpha license should work.

Product Authorization Key != License.

[dennis cooper]

OK. I got a chance to try your suggestions.

The result of the
LICE ISSUE PDS-SE-AXP !on the Alpha

Software Product Authorization Key Replica
Issued by C10212_PRD
Issued on 27-AUG-2009 16:11
-----------------------------------
Issuer: DCI
Authorization: SBW-99092-003
Product Name: PDS-SE-AXP
Producer: DCI
Units: 0
Availability: F
Options: (ALPHA)
Hardware ID: X00-00-F8-09-8B-F6
Checksum: x-xxxx-xxx-xxxx-xxxx [checksum obfuscated by moderator]

The result of the @vmslicense--register !on the Itanium
.
.
.
Here is a list of the license information just entered:

Issuer: DCI
Authorization: SBW-99092-003
Product Name: PDS-SE-AXP
Producer: DCI
Units: 0
Release Date:
Version:
Termination Date:
Availability: F
Activity:
Options:
Token:
Hardware ID: X00-00-F8-09-8B-F6
Checksum: x-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx


Is that correct? [YES]:
Registering PDS-SE-AXP license in SYS$COMMON:[SYSEXE]LMF$LICENSE.LDB...
%LICENSE-F-BADCHK, checksum does not validate for PDS-SE-AXP

Please review all entered PAK data, including the checksum.


So... It appears that the PDS is hardware related...

Any thought?

D

[John Gillings]

D,
Just in case it was a typo, try:

$ LICENSE ISSUE/PROCEDURE

which will generate a DCL command procedure containing a LICENSE REGISTER command. Copy the procedure to your target system and see if it works.

If that still fails mail me a copy of the procedure (my name with @ in the middle and .com on the end). I'll see if I can work out why it's not working.