On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:48:01 -0700, donna hofmeister writes:

> I'm starting to lose track of how many people have come to me in the last
> few days whining about "the board signing the cda/nda".
>
> in 2004 (go check the minute archives) hp was pressuring the board to
> sign an nda, essentially saying sign or we won't talk to you. you can
> easily see in the archives where the board DID approve the WORDING of
> the nda (after extensive negociations with hp) but NO WHERE will you see
> that the board SIGNED an nda.
>
> because IT DID NOT HAPPEN!


Followed on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:08:44 -0400 by Connie Sellitto:

> Good for you! I support you and applaud the OpenMPE Board's
> efforts. It takes a lot of time and courage to continue to fight for
> something we believe in, and need to keep our HP3000's running beyond
> the next few years.
>
> Thank you all for your hard work.


I admire both of these people and I want you to know that nothing I have seen so far was a personal attack on the members of the board, at least nothing I have written.

However, exactly what is OpenMPE fighting for? I think at the time it was formed we all believed that "something" could, and should, be done about HP abandoning MPE. However, we were sadly mistaken. Mistaken in the first place about HP abandoning MPE. They did not. They wished it to die, to wither and disperse, to vanish as smoke into the air. I firmly believe that HP has no intention of ever parting with any portion of MPE, and certainly not the source code, nor will they ever "abandon" MPE to the open (or even semi-open) source development model.

Secondly, we were mistaken in the belief that we, the humble consumers of HP's products, could ever "do" anything that would sway HP's BOD. This should have been evident from the definition that HP gave of "customer". We could expect a company to at least listen to its customers, but we should have expected them to placate, stall, and obfuscate when dealing with their non-customers, which most HP3000 shops seem to be.

As for the issue of a NDA, a signed NDA would only be a de jure recognition of a de facto condition.

Jim




* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *