On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/27/24 2:58 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>
>>>> Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining
>>>> their own Perl port ?
>>>
>>> They are not maintaining their own port.
>>>
>>
>> So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
>> base installation.
>
> They are using the standard distribution as well as some kit-building
> procedures I created. This is all open source and they are not doing
> anything wrong here.
>

I didn't think they would be. What you say below matches what I thought
you were doing.

> What I have been doing for a long time that no one else has been doing
> is fairly frequent builds of the current development branch followed by
> fixing upstream whatever got broken since the last time I built. That
> constant maintenance is why the standard distribution even works on VMS.
>

That is exactly my point. You are doing work for free that directly benefits
VSI. The fact you push your changes to a public distribution and VSI take
from that distribution, instead of from you directly, does not change that.

I should also point out that this is also the type of unseen thankless work
that nobody notices when everything is running ok, but which they notice
big time when that thankless work stops being done.

VSI are in serious danger of finding this out the hard way, especially given
the multiple open source packages people run on VMS.

>> Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
>> to apply for anything. :-(
>
> Thanks for the note of support. I don't really feel that anybody owes me
> anything, but "why are you making it harder for me to help you?" is a
> question that's been rattling around in my head.
>

They owe you a bloody great big thanks for doing this work and for doing
it to a sufficiently high standard that they can directly package it as
part of a commercial product.

> I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
> Somehow there was too much interest and not enough "engagement"? If
> Arne had put all his nice example code on a VSI-hosted wiki instead of
> his own web site would that have convinced them that the community is
> doing enough for VSI?
>

I just don't get it either. HPE (including HPE India) seemed to handle this
a _lot_ better than VSI are doing.

> Meanwhile I still don't have even an auto-reply from applying for a new
> community license.
>

I really hope by now that is on its way to rapidly being fixed. :-(

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 2024-03-27, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Wow Jan-Erik, are we twins? Some of what you write is also my story.
>
> Note, you can still hang around here in any spare time. Someone(s) need to keep
> Simon honest.
>
>:-)
>

$ set response/mode=good_natured

Simon is _always_ honest. It's just that some people don't like Simon's
level of honesty and willingness to say things people don't like to hear. :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 3/28/2024 7:23 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 5:28 AM, Bork wrote:
>> On 28/03/2024 11:12 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 8:34 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 17:12:13 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure what problem it is they are really trying to solve.
>>>>
>>>> Boost the share price.
>>>
>>> VSI is a private company not a public company.
>>
>> Private company's still have shares.
>
> Yes. But since they are not traded there is no price
> on the stock exchange to boost.
>
>> In any case, they're possibly juicing the
>> value to sell off the IP.
>
> I doubt that. I don't think VSI got any IP that they can
> sell.
>
> Arne
>

There is also the question of whether they can re-sale the license(s) or
agreements they received from HP. Perhaps acquisition of a company is not the
same as transferring assets?

They do own whatever they develop and can sell that.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2024-03-26 23:53:26 +0000, Jim Duff said:

> Here we are nearly 14 years after I was forced to kill the patch
> syndication feeds, and I don't know how many years after the Sydney CSC
> stopped providing the patch list, and there is *still* no way to
> automatically retrieve a list of patches for your version of VMS.

Definitely. Patches are still a mess. No way to buy VSI products
online, either. One- and two-person shops have routinely established
that. But VSI has lots of licenses and license complexity. Yeah, and
whose problem is that to address? Maybe prior to patching the problem
of PAK profligacy, pick the thousand most common, and configure and
sell those. 🤷🏼

--
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC

On 3/28/2024 1:52 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 7:23 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 5:28 AM, Bork wrote:
>>>                                 In any case, they're possibly juicing
>>> the
>>> value to sell off the IP.
>>
>> I doubt that. I don't think VSI got any IP that they can
>> sell.
>
> There is also the question of whether they can re-sale the license(s) or
> agreements they received from HP.  Perhaps acquisition of a company is
> not the same as transferring assets?

It all depends on the wording of the agreement between HP/HPE and VSI.

But a guess:

Can VSI sell the VMS IP to a third party? Definitely no - VSI does not
own VMS IP.

Can VSI sell the right to distribute VMS to a third party? My guess
would be no - I don't see HP/HPE lawyers having agreed to that
("non-transferable license" is a common term).

Can Terracloud sell their VSI stocks to a third party? My guess would be
yes - HP/HPE lawyers would not care who owns VSI.

> They do own whatever they develop and can sell that.

VSI own the IP of what they have created, but I don't see
that being a sellable product without the HP/HPE IP.

Arne

Simon Clubley schrieb am 27.03.2024 um 20:58:
> On 2024-03-27, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>> On 3/27/24 8:43 AM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-26, Craig A. Berry <craigberry@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ah, ok. I just got a rather generic e-mail entitled "Updates to VSI
>>>> Community License Program," not the personal one you got. It occurs to
>>>> me I don't even have a current license since my applications in
>>>> September and October 2023 were never either accepted or rejected. For
>>>> OpenVMS x86 I've been using the registration loophole where a prior
>>>> account on the service portal provides the ability to download a PAK.
>>>> If that's over then I guess I'm done. I applied for this new vmdk thing
>>>> today and this time didn't even get an automated acknowledgement, so
>>>> it's looking like this one may be ignored like my previous two applications.
>>>
>>> I wonder what happens to Perl on VMS in that case ?
>>>
>>> Are VSI packaging your Perl version in x86-64 VMS or are they maintaining
>>> their own Perl port ?
>>
>> They are not maintaining their own port.
>>
>
> So IOW, VSI are packaging something you have created as part of their
> base installation.
>
>> [...]
> Given the above, you should not have to apply to continue getting free
> access to VMS systems, and you certainly should not have to go through
> this pre-built system only setup.
>
> IMHO, the fact VSI have not already contacted you and arranged for your
> continued free access to VMS systems, and based on the current setup, is
> a major mistake on the part of VSI.
>
> Given what you have provided to VSI for free, you should not be having
> to apply for anything. :-(
>
> I hope one of the VSI employees reading comp.os.vms are already having
> a quiet word with the people responsible for this to get this situation
> fixed quickly.
>
> I would also recommend VSI review all the other open source software they
> make available which is maintained by non-VSI people and arrange for those
> people to have immediate continued access with the minimum of fuss and
> change required.
>
> If anyone reading this agrees with the above, could you say so here ?
> It might provoke VSI into rapidly fixing this screwup by them.

+1

In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
>>> been plenty of interest?
>>
>> One would think!
>>
>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>
>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>> laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
>> return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
>
>My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
>good thing for VMS.

Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
path would have been superior.

>>> Or, if there is such interest, perhaps some beancounter (everyone knows I
>>> dislike beancounters, right?) sees it as a way to milk some money from the interest?
>>>
>>> The community license seemed like someone understood. What happened to that
>>> understanding?
>>
>> It's been said before in this newsgroup, by me and others, that
>> the current approach is non-competitive. It may be the only
>> possible approach for business and legal reasons, but the idea
>> of generating expanded sales around a closed-source, obscure
>> commercial system was always exceedingly unlikely. Serving only
>> the legacy market is, by definition, finite.
>
>While I seem to consider the world running on Unix/Linux/WEENDOZE could be a
>more dangerous place. Some might agree since IBM seems to be still doing well.
>Yeah, they will run Linux, but, I think that is more marketing than anything else.

I think IBM managed to leverage their installed base and lock-in
to weather some pretty bad storms. More power to them, but VMS
just isn't in that same position.

>> And I say that as someone who actually really likes VMS and
>> would like to see it remain available! I dislike software
>> monocultures on a number of grounds, but the reality is that
>> we're heading towards one. It's a real shame.
>
>Well, if we get Trump, will anything matter? Good bye constitution, hello King
>Donald the First. Someone was just pointing out on TV this morning that when
>facisim (I can't spell it) comes to America, it will be carrying a US flag and a
>bible. Ok, off topic ...

You get absolutely no argument from me on this. The "When
fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross" 'quote' is often attributed to Sinclair Lewis,
possibly in his novel, "It Can't Happen Here." But it's not in
that novel, and there's no evidence he actually said it. It is
very much in keeping with the theme of the book, though.

>> Personally, I think the way to address this would have been to
>> simply do away with PAKs and time-limited licenses entirely.
>
>Gee, someone mentioned this years ago. Oh, that was me ...

:-D

- Dan C.

>> The idea that commercial users would expose themselves legally
>> and operationally by using licenses that come out of pakgen or
>> whatever never struck me as particularly evidence-based; maybe
>> back in the day when small ma' and pa' operations were buying
>> a microvax and putting it in the back office to run bookkeeping,
>> but those days are long gone. Legacy customers in the fortune
>> $n$-whatever are going to maintain their licenses because the
>> risk cost of not doing so outweighs the cost of staying on the
>> up-and-up. So what's the point of all the overhead at the OS
>> level?
>
>Indeed!

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:09:01 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> VSI does not own VMS IP.

What about the code VSI created? Do the rights to that belong to HP as
well?

On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>
>>> One would think!
>>>
>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>
>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>> laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
>>> return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
>>
>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
>> good thing for VMS.
>
> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
> things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
> path would have been superior.

What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
science (anymore) people.

bill

On 3/28/2024 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:09:01 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> VSI does not own VMS IP.
>
> What about the code VSI created? Do the rights to that belong to HP as
> well?

They must own that.

But 5% of the code for an OS is not worth much without
the remaining 95%.

Arne

On 3/28/2024 8:31 PM, bill wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>> things must be tempered by their costs.  Here, I suspect VSI was
>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>> path would have been superior.
>
> What cost are we talking about here?  If you mean the cost of
> taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
> why that could not have been fully automated.  It's not rocket
> science (anymore) people.

It should have been automated.

But there is every indication that it was not.

Arne

On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 20:36:01 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> But 5% of the code for an OS is not worth much without
> the remaining 95%.

That’s how BSD got started.

On 29/03/2024 00:31, bill wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate
>>>>> that there has
>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>
>>>> One would think!
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden?  Were they seeing any
>>>> return on it?  My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>
>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in
>>> VMS is a
>>> good thing for VMS.
>>
>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>> things must be tempered by their costs.  Here, I suspect VSI was
>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>> path would have been superior.
>
> What cost are we talking about here?  If you mean the cost of
> taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
> why that could not have been fully automated.  It's not rocket
> science (anymore) people.
>
>
> bill
>

+1 from me.
Didn't Hunter do something similar in the early days of the HP CL

--
Chris

In article <l6mgf9Fd0sdU1@mid.individual.net>,
bill <bill.gunshannon@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there has
>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>
>>>> One would think!
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
>>>> return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>
>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
>>> good thing for VMS.
>>
>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>> things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>> path would have been superior.
>
>What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
>taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
>why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
>science (anymore) people.

I agree, but I'm not privy to the issues inside of VSI that
lead up to this decision. I still think it's a poor decision,
but I freely admit I'm not aware of the full context that went
into it.

- Dan C.

On 3/28/2024 8:31 PM, bill wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate that there
>>>>> has
>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>
>>>> One would think!
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>
>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden? Were they seeing any
>>>> return on it? My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>
>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in VMS is a
>>> good thing for VMS.
>>
>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>> things must be tempered by their costs. Here, I suspect VSI was
>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>> path would have been superior.
>
> What cost are we talking about here? If you mean the cost of
> taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
> why that could not have been fully automated. It's not rocket
> science (anymore) people.
>
>
> bill
>

I tend to try to look beyond what is said ...

It may not be technical at all. What if someone in VSI, or it's parent, asked,
why are we doing this? It isn't what is our business plan.

Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it. Perhaps
those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.

I don't know anything. Just speculation. But in c.o.v I have not noticed much
being said by VSI people. Might not be healthy speaking out against those at
the top.

Nor am I buying the newbie issue. Just point them at c.o.v and they would get
more advice than they wanted.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 29/03/2024 01:54, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 8:31 PM, bill wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 8:03 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>> In article <uu2dqu$35k4u$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2024 9:03 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
>>>>> In article <utvdak$2bpcm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dave Froble  <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Well, if it was/is that much work, then should that not indicate
>>>>>> that there
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> been plenty of interest?
>>>>>
>>>>> One would think!
>>>>>
>>>>>> And if so, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?
>>>>>
>>>>> I hate to be that guy, but...but it must be asked: were the eggs
>>>>> laid by that goose really all that golden?  Were they seeing any
>>>>> return on it?  My guess is, "no, not really."
>>>>
>>>> My perspective has been that anything that gets or keeps interest in
>>>> VMS is a
>>>> good thing for VMS.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally I agree with you, but with the caveat that those
>>> things must be tempered by their costs.  Here, I suspect VSI was
>>> faced with a cost that they didn't feel was worth it; they chose
>>> a path to address that, where you and I both agree that another
>>> path would have been superior.
>>
>> What cost are we talking about here?  If you mean the cost of
>> taking in requests and sending out licenses I see no reason
>> why that could not have been fully automated.  It's not rocket
>> science (anymore) people.
>>
>>
>> bill
>>
>
> I tend to try to look beyond what is said ...
>
> It may not be technical at all.  What if someone in VSI, or it's parent,
> asked, why are we doing this?  It isn't what is our business plan.
>
> Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it.
> Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
>
> I don't know anything.  Just speculation.  But in c.o.v I have not
> noticed much being said by VSI people.  Might not be healthy speaking
> out against those at the top.
>
> Nor am I buying the newbie issue.  Just point them at c.o.v and they
> would get more advice than they wanted.
>

I believe the recent batch of VMS newbies helped the demise.

Too many couldn't be bothered to even look at he docs/release notes. One
chap couldn't be bothered to read the TCP/IP docs - and it showed in the
pleading thread.

He then complained about the first 2.2-2 patch - the release notes
clearly stated to install the PCSI patch first - as did his transcript
from his attempt to install.

He then just grumbled on the forum - even after a few good clear
responses from VSI people.

No wonder they thought is it worth it?

--
Chris

On 3/28/2024 9:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> It may not be technical at all.  What if someone in VSI, or it's parent,
> asked, why are we doing this?  It isn't what is our business plan.
>
> Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it.
> Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.

I think the business case is there for CL.

The cost of emailing out CL licenses is a couple of orders
of magnitudes smaller than the cost of replacing the
CL "free testing" with employee testers and replacing
the CL "open source maintainers" with employee developers.

> I don't know anything.  Just speculation.  But in c.o.v I have not
> noticed much being said by VSI people.  Might not be healthy speaking
> out against those at the top.

Public commenting on your employers decisions is
generally considered inappropriate.

Arne

On 3/28/2024 10:06 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 01:54, Dave Froble wrote:
>> Nor am I buying the newbie issue.  Just point them at c.o.v and they
>> would get more advice than they wanted.
>
> I believe the recent batch of VMS newbies helped the demise.
>
> Too many couldn't be bothered to even look at he docs/release notes. One
> chap couldn't be bothered to read the TCP/IP docs - and it showed in the
> pleading thread.
>
> He then complained about the first 2.2-2 patch - the release notes
> clearly stated to install the PCSI patch first - as did his transcript
> from his attempt to install.
>
> He then just grumbled on the forum - even after a few good clear
> responses from VSI people.
>
> No wonder they thought is it worth it?

Beginner questions can be frustrating.

But I don't think the changes will fix the "problem".

The beginners are likely to:
- only be interested in x86-64 (they don't have an old
Alpha on the shelf)
- be happy about the disk image as installation is
one of their problems
so I predict practically the same number of beginners asking
beginner questions.

But those outside of VSI able to answer the beginner questions
at the forum or here are likely to want more than x86-64 and
prefer kit + license over disk image. So I predict fewer
of those helping answer questions.

Arne

On 3/28/2024 10:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 9:54 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
>> It may not be technical at all. What if someone in VSI, or it's parent,
>> asked, why are we doing this? It isn't what is our business plan.
>>
>> Something like the CL must have believers implementing and running it.
>> Perhaps those calling the shots are not believers in the CL.
>
> I think the business case is there for CL.
>
> The cost of emailing out CL licenses is a couple of orders
> of magnitudes smaller than the cost of replacing the
> CL "free testing" with employee testers and replacing
> the CL "open source maintainers" with employee developers.
>
>> I don't know anything. Just speculation. But in c.o.v I have not noticed
>> much being said by VSI people. Might not be healthy speaking out against
>> those at the top.
>
> Public commenting on your employers decisions is
> generally considered inappropriate.
>
> Arne
>
>

And dangerous ...

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486