f



Looking for PICK or PICK-Like database with no charge for unlimited users

Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15 
years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large 
installations.  We are currently bidding on a 350-400 user site, to install 
our Practice Management and Billing suite of applications, and the seat cost 
is pricing us out of the market.

Are their any alternatives?

Please respond to rob@healthpac.net or bdc@healthpac.net with any suggested 
alternatives to Raining Data D3.

Please bear in mind we cannot just throw out our legacy applications or stop 
supporting our existing 150 client sites.  So any new database we go to must 
be very Pick-like.

Thanks,

Rob Bergman 


0
Rob
1/17/2007 10:10:29 PM
comp.databases.pick 5449 articles. 2 followers. ttrroonniicc (5) is leader. Post Follow

52 Replies
806 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

Rob,

Take a look at OpenQM, they have a very reasonably priced per seat
licensed product the can be very Pick like.

They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
applications needing to be open source as well.

I don't know how easy it is to convert you applications but you can
post queries on the Google group.

Check out openqm.com

Regards,

Dale

Rob Bergman wrote:
> Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15
> years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large
> installations.  We are currently bidding on a 350-400 user site, to install
> our Practice Management and Billing suite of applications, and the seat cost
> is pricing us out of the market.
>
> Are their any alternatives?
>
> Please respond to rob@healthpac.net or bdc@healthpac.net with any suggested
> alternatives to Raining Data D3.
>
> Please bear in mind we cannot just throw out our legacy applications or stop
> supporting our existing 150 client sites.  So any new database we go to must
> be very Pick-like.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob Bergman

0
Dale
1/17/2007 10:58:14 PM
As Rob says, take a look at our OpenQM product. The open source version
is almost certainly not appropriate for your use but the cost for a
permanent licence is very low (around US$120 per seat) with no
mandatory maintenance contracts.

We will happily provide reasonable levels of email assistance during
the migration should you need guidance. Many users have migrated, often
with no external help at all.

Our US distributor is EasyCo whose contact details can be found on our
web site.

If you will be at the Spectrum conference in Long Beach in March, come
and have a chat about the product.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/18/2007 8:32:50 AM
Dale wrote:
> They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
> agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
> applications needing to be open source as well.

While I am not a lawyer and presumably Dale is not either, the tie-in
between applications and OpenQM that could lead to the requirement for
having to Open Source applications is fictitious.

The basic requirement is, for example, if this post's EMR provider
decides to use OpenQM and makes modifications and/or additions to
OpenQM that it then provides to its customers, for free or at a price,
it has to post those modifications and/or additions to the OpenQM list.

If Henry makes modifications and/or additions to OpenQM and uses those
internally only, he has no requirement under the GPL to share that
code.  .

The GPL is treacherous only because there are too many lawyers who
absolutely don't understand the concept of Open Source and hence don't
understand the contractual obligations of the GPL.

Even Microsoft uses some GPL code and I have not seen any evidence of
Wall Street dumping Microsoft stock because of the fear that its
biggest money maker, it's Microsoft Office suite of applications,  will
be drawn in under the GPL.

I go through the Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org to get my
advise.  I strongly suggest that anyone who has questions about the GPL
do likewise and also use their *state* bar association to find a lawyer
who is competent in giving GPL advise.  By making such a specific
*written* request you give yourself a way to sue for incompetence if a
lawyer mishandles your requirement, especially by advising against the
GPL when there is no sound legal reason to do so and as a consequence
your business is damaged because business opportunities are missed.

Henry Keultjes
Database Scientifics Project http://www.ncolug.org/ppc.htm
Mansfield Ohio USA
Direct 419-525-1111

0
hbkeultjes
1/18/2007 1:34:12 PM
On 2007-01-18 05:34:12 -0800, hbkeultjes@gmail.com said:

> Dale wrote:
>> They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
>> agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
>> applications needing to be open source as well.
> 
> I go through the Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org to get my
> advise.  I strongly suggest that anyone who has questions about the GPL
> do likewise and also use their *state* bar association to find a lawyer
> who is competent in giving GPL advise.  By making such a specific
> *written* request you give yourself a way to sue for incompetence if a
> lawyer mishandles your requirement, especially by advising against the
> GPL when there is no sound legal reason to do so and as a consequence
> your business is damaged because business opportunities are missed.

Sound advice. In this particular case, however, might it be even 
easier? Ask Martin, since he monitors the group. How does LadyBridge 
intend its license to be interpreted? If a VAR has a prioprietary 
application that they want to keep closed (ie. no access to source code 
by their customers), can they sell it on OpenQM either by including 
OpenQM with it or having the customer obtain OpenQM separately, or do 
they need to use commercial QM in order to keep their application 
source code hidden?


-- 

Regards,

Clif

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W. Clifton Oliver, CCP
CLIFTON OLIVER & ASSOCIATES
Tel: +1 619 460 5678    Web: www.oliver.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




0
Clifton
1/18/2007 5:37:02 PM
hbkeultjes@gmail.com wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
> > agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
> > applications needing to be open source as well.
>
> While I am not a lawyer and presumably Dale is not either, the tie-in
> between applications and OpenQM that could lead to the requirement for
> having to Open Source applications is fictitious.

It's true I'm not a lawyer.  My point was to be informed before going
the open source root.

I recall seeing in the OpenQM group about someone wanting to go open
source and getting someone to transfer and convert the software.
Martin's response was: 'beware of the GPL agreement', and so I put
forth the same advise.

I totally agree with you that if people choose to use open source
software that contacting good legal advice is essential.  That being
said, what are the ramifications of selling software that runs on
'unsupported' open source stuff as opposed to the license version?  I
donno!!

If Rob uses the licensed version he can cut about $120,000 USD from his
costs.  That is some chunk of change!!!  And Martin et al gets rewarded
for his efforts, and he'll be more inclined to keep that effort going.

Regards,

Dale
>
>
> Henry Keultjes
> Database Scientifics Project http://www.ncolug.org/ppc.htm
> Mansfield Ohio USA
> Direct 419-525-1111

0
Dale
1/18/2007 6:25:35 PM
> Sound advice. In this particular case, however, might it be even
> easier? Ask Martin, since he monitors the group. How does LadyBridge
> intend its license to be interpreted?

This issue has been discussed at length ever since we released the open
source. Everyone appears to have their own view but the advice we have
received is essentially this....

If a user modifies the OpenQM source code and releases this to a third
party they are legally obliged to release their modifications as open
source too.

If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
unless the development was released as open source.

There are complex rules about what constitutes distribution. Much has
been written about this elsewhere and I do not intend to repeat it all
here. In protecting our commercial interests, we are likely to take
legal action in any case of GPL violation that comes to our attention.

Given that all participants in the endless arguments about open source
seem to agree that seeking legal advice is a good idea, perhaps it is
sensible to point out that such advice is likely to cost significantly
more than the licence fee they were trying to avoid.

Also, bear in mind that the open source...

a) is released about two months after the equivalent "closed source"
product. Thus, new features, fixes, etc will be a long time coming. We
also publicly state that some releases may never appear in open source
form.

b) the open source is issued in its Linux form only and even that may
require changes for newer Linux releases.

c) some of the more advanced features planned for the future will
probably not be included in the open source. Our stated intention when
we released the source was to release the core multivalue
functionality. We have always said that the "fancy bits" may not be
released in this form.

d) the open source comes with no warranty and aboslutely no support. If
you hit a problem, it is for you to resolve. It is highly likely that
you would spend more in terms of time than the equivalent cost for a
fully supported licence. On the other hand, our response time to
commercial support calls tends to be extremely fast.

e) Hopefully this will never happen but, if users try to subvert the
open source from the spirit of our intentions when we released it, we
may cease making it available.

So, the best advice is to try an evaluation copy and then invest the
small fee for a commercial licence. That way, there is absolutely no
risk of being forced to release your company secrets to the rest of the
world.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/18/2007 6:59:15 PM
Rob Bergman wrote:
> Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15
> years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large
> installations.  We are currently bidding on a 350-400 user site, to install
> our Practice Management and Billing suite of applications, and the seat cost
> is pricing us out of the market.
>
> Are their any alternatives?
>
> Please respond to rob@healthpac.net or bdc@healthpac.net with any suggested
> alternatives to Raining Data D3.
>
> Please bear in mind we cannot just throw out our legacy applications or stop
> supporting our existing 150 client sites.  So any new database we go to must
> be very Pick-like.

Along with OpenQM, you might look at IBM's pricing model for UniVerse
(which is apparently easier to convert to from D3 than is UniData).  I
recall paying for unlimited users in the mid-90's (the last time such
an expense came from my budget) because we typically had fewer than 200
users, but had crunch times (e.g. registration) when there could be
many more.  My recollections are fuzzy, but I think it made more sense
to me at the time to go with "unlimited" than 250 from a pricing
standpoint.  It is possible that this was specific to a single VAR,
however, and definitely possible that it has changed (given it was a
different company back then).

Best wishes.  --dawn

0
dawn
1/18/2007 7:04:26 PM
Martin - I'm confused.
Many, many, many of us are writing application "derivative code" under Linux 
(read U2 or RD), which we ship all over the planet, nor has there ever been 
a license issue with IBM or RD.
To my knowledge none of this application "derivative code"  has ever been 
sent to the Linux folks.
Yes - if we change something released by/for the Linux (read RedHat) group, 
then - of course - it would be returned to them.
Curious,
Tom

"Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message 
news:1169146755.810764.249660@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>> Sound advice. In this particular case, however, might it be even
>> easier? Ask Martin, since he monitors the group. How does LadyBridge
>> intend its license to be interpreted?
>
> This issue has been discussed at length ever since we released the open
> source. Everyone appears to have their own view but the advice we have
> received is essentially this....
>
> If a user modifies the OpenQM source code and releases this to a third
> party they are legally obliged to release their modifications as open
> source too.
>
> If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
> unless the development was released as open source.
>
> There are complex rules about what constitutes distribution. Much has
> been written about this elsewhere and I do not intend to repeat it all
> here. In protecting our commercial interests, we are likely to take
> legal action in any case of GPL violation that comes to our attention.
>
> Given that all participants in the endless arguments about open source
> seem to agree that seeking legal advice is a good idea, perhaps it is
> sensible to point out that such advice is likely to cost significantly
> more than the licence fee they were trying to avoid.
>
> Also, bear in mind that the open source...
>
> a) is released about two months after the equivalent "closed source"
> product. Thus, new features, fixes, etc will be a long time coming. We
> also publicly state that some releases may never appear in open source
> form.
>
> b) the open source is issued in its Linux form only and even that may
> require changes for newer Linux releases.
>
> c) some of the more advanced features planned for the future will
> probably not be included in the open source. Our stated intention when
> we released the source was to release the core multivalue
> functionality. We have always said that the "fancy bits" may not be
> released in this form.
>
> d) the open source comes with no warranty and aboslutely no support. If
> you hit a problem, it is for you to resolve. It is highly likely that
> you would spend more in terms of time than the equivalent cost for a
> fully supported licence. On the other hand, our response time to
> commercial support calls tends to be extremely fast.
>
> e) Hopefully this will never happen but, if users try to subvert the
> open source from the spirit of our intentions when we released it, we
> may cease making it available.
>
> So, the best advice is to try an evaluation copy and then invest the
> small fee for a commercial licence. That way, there is absolutely no
> risk of being forced to release your company secrets to the rest of the
> world.
>
>
> Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.
> 


0
Tom
1/18/2007 7:51:29 PM
Hi All
I basically agree with Tom's assessment of the situation.
However the fact that the problem is even being discussed shows that my
approach is the one to follow.

Never supply open source code to anyone.  Play with it if you wish.  Or tell
them they can buy your package for x$ and source the database wherever they
wish.

Reasons:
1 We want the suppliers to stay in business, so buy the product.  Do you
give yours away?
2 There are dozens of predatory scumbags buying up defunct companies and
suing innocent users.  Look at SCO and now we have someone suing for
Bluetooth that the writer gave to the world but some idiot issued a patent
to a dervative.
3 In Australia under the Trade Practices act if someone loses money over
something that you knew about and you did not inform them YOU ARE LIABLE.

Peter McMurray

"Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
news:LpydnZBr38xaUjLYnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
> Martin - I'm confused.
> Many, many, many of us are writing application "derivative code" under
Linux
> (read U2 or RD), which we ship all over the planet, nor has there ever
been
> a license issue with IBM or RD.
> To my knowledge none of this application "derivative code"  has ever been
> sent to the Linux folks.
> Yes - if we change something released by/for the Linux (read RedHat)
group,
> then - of course - it would be returned to them.
> Curious,
> Tom
>
> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message
> news:1169146755.810764.249660@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >> Sound advice. In this particular case, however, might it be even
> >> easier? Ask Martin, since he monitors the group. How does LadyBridge
> >> intend its license to be interpreted?
> >
> > This issue has been discussed at length ever since we released the open
> > source. Everyone appears to have their own view but the advice we have
> > received is essentially this....
> >
> > If a user modifies the OpenQM source code and releases this to a third
> > party they are legally obliged to release their modifications as open
> > source too.
> >
> > If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
> > release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
> > advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
> > unless the development was released as open source.
> >
> > There are complex rules about what constitutes distribution. Much has
> > been written about this elsewhere and I do not intend to repeat it all
> > here. In protecting our commercial interests, we are likely to take
> > legal action in any case of GPL violation that comes to our attention.
> >
> > Given that all participants in the endless arguments about open source
> > seem to agree that seeking legal advice is a good idea, perhaps it is
> > sensible to point out that such advice is likely to cost significantly
> > more than the licence fee they were trying to avoid.
> >
> > Also, bear in mind that the open source...
> >
> > a) is released about two months after the equivalent "closed source"
> > product. Thus, new features, fixes, etc will be a long time coming. We
> > also publicly state that some releases may never appear in open source
> > form.
> >
> > b) the open source is issued in its Linux form only and even that may
> > require changes for newer Linux releases.
> >
> > c) some of the more advanced features planned for the future will
> > probably not be included in the open source. Our stated intention when
> > we released the source was to release the core multivalue
> > functionality. We have always said that the "fancy bits" may not be
> > released in this form.
> >
> > d) the open source comes with no warranty and aboslutely no support. If
> > you hit a problem, it is for you to resolve. It is highly likely that
> > you would spend more in terms of time than the equivalent cost for a
> > fully supported licence. On the other hand, our response time to
> > commercial support calls tends to be extremely fast.
> >
> > e) Hopefully this will never happen but, if users try to subvert the
> > open source from the spirit of our intentions when we released it, we
> > may cease making it available.
> >
> > So, the best advice is to try an evaluation copy and then invest the
> > small fee for a commercial licence. That way, there is absolutely no
> > risk of being forced to release your company secrets to the rest of the
> > world.
> >
> >
> > Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.
> >
>
>


0
Excalibur
1/18/2007 11:04:11 PM
Is this not the nadir of our industray?
I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
dustbin!
if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper solutioj....

Rob Bergman wrote:
> Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15
> years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large
> installations.  We are currently bidding on a 350-400 user site, to install
> our Practice Management and Billing suite of applications, and the seat cost
> is pricing us out of the market.
>
> Are their any alternatives?
>
> Please respond to rob@healthpac.net or bdc@healthpac.net with any suggested
> alternatives to Raining Data D3.
>
> Please bear in mind we cannot just throw out our legacy applications or stop
> supporting our existing 150 client sites.  So any new database we go to must
> be very Pick-like.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob Bergman

0
mg
1/19/2007 1:04:46 AM
With IBM having done benchmarks last year @ 15,000+ users, somehow I
don't think they they will be offering an "unlimited user" licence at a
200 user price point !?!

That said, talking to ANY vendor about a special situation, even RD!!,
may be worthwhile. AT the end of the day you may be "suprised" to learn
that they are willing to get "something" rather than 100% of a lost
deal - or not, but unless you ask the question you will never know


dawn wrote:
> Rob Bergman wrote:
> > Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15
> > years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large
> > installations.  We are currently bidding on a 350-400 user site, to install
> > our Practice Management and Billing suite of applications, and the seat cost
> > is pricing us out of the market.
> >
> > Are their any alternatives?
> >
> > Please respond to rob@healthpac.net or bdc@healthpac.net with any suggested
> > alternatives to Raining Data D3.
> >
> > Please bear in mind we cannot just throw out our legacy applications or stop
> > supporting our existing 150 client sites.  So any new database we go to must
> > be very Pick-like.
>
> Along with OpenQM, you might look at IBM's pricing model for UniVerse
> (which is apparently easier to convert to from D3 than is UniData).  I
> recall paying for unlimited users in the mid-90's (the last time such
> an expense came from my budget) because we typically had fewer than 200
> users, but had crunch times (e.g. registration) when there could be
> many more.  My recollections are fuzzy, but I think it made more sense
> to me at the time to go with "unlimited" than 250 from a pricing
> standpoint.  It is possible that this was specific to a single VAR,
> however, and definitely possible that it has changed (given it was a
> different company back then).
> 
> Best wishes.  --dawn

0
Ross
1/19/2007 2:26:36 AM

On Jan 19, 1:04 am, mg.ry...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is this not the nadir of our industray?
> I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
> Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
> We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
> dustbin!
> if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper solutioj....




Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
(jeez easy to say isnt it ;)

0
Symeon
1/19/2007 11:32:55 AM
Symeon wrote:
> Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
> use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
> better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
> client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
> not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
> (jeez easy to say isnt it ;)

In 1993 I acquired the Cumulus AlphaWindows rights but sofar I have
never received an inkling of anyone willing to pay for adapting it to
Pick natively.

Henry Keultjes
Database Scientifics Project http://www.ncolug.org/ppc.htm
Mansfield Ohio USA
419-525-1111

0
hbkeultjes
1/19/2007 1:09:36 PM
It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still, 
whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to 
support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent 
connection.

But as you say, you can take advantage.

We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due to 
extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but whilst 
they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking advantage!

Simon
"Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 19, 1:04 am, mg.ry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Is this not the nadir of our industray?
>> I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
>> Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
>> We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
>> dustbin!
>> if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper solutioj....
>
>
>
>
> Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
> use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
> better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
> client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
> not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
> (jeez easy to say isnt it ;)
> 


0
Simon
1/19/2007 1:13:14 PM
Simon Verona wrote:

> It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still,
> whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to
> support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent
> connection.
>
> But as you say, you can take advantage.
>
> We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due to
> extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but whilst
> they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking advantage!
>
> Simon
> "Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 1:04 am, mg.ry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Is this not the nadir of our industray?
> >> I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
> >> Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
> >> We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
> >> dustbin!
> >> if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper solutioj....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
> > use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
> > better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
> > client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
> > not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
> > (jeez easy to say isnt it ;)
> >


Absolutely !!

However it is a double edged sword, We have systems based arround
phantoms using the GCI to do a c call for some ip messaging and clients
on the front connecting back to the messenger. This means we have
customers with 1000 desktops running off 30 or 40 phantoms on a 4 user
licence.  Great for costs, but when i approach IBM saying hey this is a
big customer and we have a few problems and need your help, they say
erm 4 licences ?  bottom of the list ......

:(

0
Symeon
1/19/2007 4:34:15 PM
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Martin - I'm confused.
> Many, many, many of us are writing application "derivative code" under Linux
> (read U2 or RD), which we ship all over the planet, nor has there ever been
> a license issue with IBM or RD.

Visit http://www.openqm.com/gpl2.htm for a brief summary of the rules
as they have been explained to us. For more detail see the actual text
of the GPL and the various sites that provide explanatory notes on its
implications.

This whole topic has been summarised several times over the last three
years and can be found on this list and elsewhere.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/19/2007 6:04:39 PM
On Jan 19, 8:13 am, "Simon Verona" <x...@xx.com> wrote:
> It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still,
> whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to
> support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent
> connection.
>
> But as you say, you can take advantage.
>
> We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due to
> extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but whilst
> they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking advantage!
>
> Simon"Symeon" <syme...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Simon,

IBM has changed their User Licenses to include a pooling license.  We
have inquired about this and here is a clip from their handbooks that
they sent us:

U2 Transaction Document (contract)
A. Licenses granted are determined by the number of users for Workgroup
and Enterprise edition and by the number of sessions for Server
edition. Users are based on the maximum number of concurrent
individuals accessing the program via one or more connections. Sessions
are based on the number of concurrent users making a single connection
to the program; additional connections per session are available as a
chargeable feature. In addition, Connection Pooling licenses are
available as a chargeable feature to allow client programs to send
requests through a web server to a shared set of persistent database
connections and are separate from concurrent users or sessions.

B. Customers are required to purchase a number of licenses equal to the
maximum number of concurrent solution users. If either third party or
in-house multiplexing software or hardware is used in conjunction with
U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to
the actual number of licenses you would have used without multiplexing
software.

C. Regardless of the technology used for connection pooling, IBM
connection pooling licensing and charges apply, subject to the
applicable OEM contract discount if any.


U2 Handbook
As of UniData 7.1 and UniVerse 10.1.16, Connection Pooling is available
as a chargeable feature. Connection Pooling works in conjunction with
UniObjects for .NET and UniObjects for Java to provide non-persistent
client connections to the database for n-Tier applications. The pricing
unit is per connection pool.

Note: The Enterprise Edition includes two (2) free connection pools.

Connection Pooling Requirement

Regardless of the technology used for connection pooling, IBM
connection pooling licensing and charges apply subject to any
applicable OEM contract discount. This includes using device licensing
technology to implement connection pooling. RedBack Webshares provide
connection pooling for RedBack.

I hope this helps,

Rick Weiser
DesignBais International

0
Rick
1/19/2007 6:33:05 PM
Martin: here is the phrase in question:
"You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to 
distribute the product, you must release your own software under the terms 
of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."

I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as distributed, 
and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will never 
happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on it, nor 
will I ever recommend it to any clients.
That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license. Never going 
to happen.
Good luck expanding your user base.
This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the lawyers 
at SCO?
Regards,
Tom

"Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message 
news:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> Martin - I'm confused.
>> Many, many, many of us are writing application "derivative code" under 
>> Linux
>> (read U2 or RD), which we ship all over the planet, nor has there ever 
>> been
>> a license issue with IBM or RD.
>
> Visit http://www.openqm.com/gpl2.htm for a brief summary of the rules
> as they have been explained to us. For more detail see the actual text
> of the GPL and the various sites that provide explanatory notes on its
> implications.
>
> This whole topic has been summarised several times over the last three
> years and can be found on this list and elsewhere.
>
>
> Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.
> 


0
Tom
1/19/2007 6:57:48 PM

On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to
> distribute the product, you must release your own software under the terms
> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
>
> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as distributed,
> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will never
> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on it, nor
> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license. Never going
> to happen.
> Good luck expanding your user base.
> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the lawyers
> at SCO?
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>

Tom,

Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and you
don't had to worry about it.

Rick

0
Rick
1/19/2007 7:26:11 PM
Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go 
through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they are 
not trying something sneaky.
I've lost any trust in them at this point.
Tom

"Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message 
news:1169234771.553692.230440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
>> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
>> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to
>> distribute the product, you must release your own software under the 
>> terms
>> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
>>
>> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as 
>> distributed,
>> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
>> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will never
>> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on it, 
>> nor
>> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
>> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license. Never 
>> going
>> to happen.
>> Good luck expanding your user base.
>> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the 
>> lawyers
>> at SCO?
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in 
>> messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Tom,
>
> Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and you
> don't had to worry about it.
>
> Rick
> 


0
Tom
1/19/2007 7:49:44 PM
"Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
news:uuSdnQLd0PBCvSzYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they
are
> not trying something sneaky.
> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
> Tom
>

God bless you, brother, but that sounds like a personal problem.  I hope
others aren't put off by that.
Martin has done an immense service to this community and deserves to be
rewarding (well beyond the license fee).
IMO.


0
Jeff
1/19/2007 8:14:01 PM
Jeff - confusion seems to be my current state these days.
Confusion about Martin wanting my programs developed in OpenQM.
Confusion about their commercial license terms.
Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than 
others?).
I'm always looking for enlightment.
Please educate me.
And yes - please God, bless us all.
Tom

"Jeff Caspari" <FDFDFDFD@sneakernet.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dE9sh.34$pb7.6@trndny09...
>
> "Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:uuSdnQLd0PBCvSzYnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
>> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
>> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they
> are
>> not trying something sneaky.
>> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
>> Tom
>>
>
> God bless you, brother, but that sounds like a personal problem.  I hope
> others aren't put off by that.
> Martin has done an immense service to this community and deserves to be
> rewarding (well beyond the license fee).
> IMO.
>
> 


0
Tom
1/19/2007 8:57:20 PM
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Jeff - confusion seems to be my current state these days.
> Confusion about Martin wanting my programs developed in OpenQM.

Like any vendor, we would like to attract new clients. The open source
makes us no money (in fact it has cost us a great deal), therefore the
commercial product is what we recommend. It has the advantage of being
a fully supported product.

> Confusion about their commercial license terms.

It is a straight forward, "non-technospeak" agreement with no hidden
agenda. There is no plan to grab your application or in any other way
interfere with your business.

> Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than
> others?).

We firmly believe that the software industry is a rip-off. Low prices
do not mean poor service. Indeed, we are frequently congratulated on
our excellent support services.

If you choose to go elsewhere, that's fine with us but you are likely
to be spending vast sums of money that you could keep in hand for other
developments. If you are still in doubt, get comments from some of our
users.

If you will be at the Long Beach Spectrum conference, come and have a
chat with us.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/20/2007 9:14:29 AM
Martin - a simple question -
If I develop a new application using the open source version of OpenQM, and 
then ship that code to a client site who is using the commercial license 
version of OpenQM, what needs to be shipped to you?
Tom

"Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message 
news:1169284469.155645.139030@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> Jeff - confusion seems to be my current state these days.
>> Confusion about Martin wanting my programs developed in OpenQM.
>
> Like any vendor, we would like to attract new clients. The open source
> makes us no money (in fact it has cost us a great deal), therefore the
> commercial product is what we recommend. It has the advantage of being
> a fully supported product.
>
>> Confusion about their commercial license terms.
>
> It is a straight forward, "non-technospeak" agreement with no hidden
> agenda. There is no plan to grab your application or in any other way
> interfere with your business.
>
>> Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than
>> others?).
>
> We firmly believe that the software industry is a rip-off. Low prices
> do not mean poor service. Indeed, we are frequently congratulated on
> our excellent support services.
>
> If you choose to go elsewhere, that's fine with us but you are likely
> to be spending vast sums of money that you could keep in hand for other
> developments. If you are still in doubt, get comments from some of our
> users.
>
> If you will be at the Long Beach Spectrum conference, come and have a
> chat with us.
>
>
> Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.
> 


0
Tom
1/20/2007 9:44:43 AM
"Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message 
news:1169284469.155645.139030@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> Jeff - confusion seems to be my current state these days.
>> Confusion about Martin wanting my programs developed in OpenQM.
>
> Like any vendor, we would like to attract new clients. The open source
> makes us no money (in fact it has cost us a great deal), therefore the
> commercial product is what we recommend. It has the advantage of being
> a fully supported product.

My confusion: in that case, why do you even have an Open source version? I 
see no problems with your commercial version licence.

Chandru Murthi
>> Confusion about their commercial license terms.
>
> It is a straight forward, "non-technospeak" agreement with no hidden
> agenda. There is no plan to grab your application or in any other way
> interfere with your business.
>
>> Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than
>> others?).
>
> We firmly believe that the software industry is a rip-off. Low prices
> do not mean poor service. Indeed, we are frequently congratulated on
> our excellent support services.
>
> If you choose to go elsewhere, that's fine with us but you are likely
> to be spending vast sums of money that you could keep in hand for other
> developments. If you are still in doubt, get comments from some of our
> users.
>
> If you will be at the Long Beach Spectrum conference, come and have a
> chat with us.
>
>
> Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.
> 


0
Chandru
1/20/2007 3:58:13 PM
> Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than
> others?).

Let's see how I do with this.  In my view:

1.  The community has always clamored for someone willing to create a free
version of the model that can be easily available and distributed.  The
idea, of course is to widen the interest, and eventually the resources
available to all of us.

2.  This could be the seed that has allowed other competent models to
flourish and gain wider appreciation.

3.  This takes an extraordinary effort that, until now, no one has been able
or willing to undertake.  Even in the face of all the criticism, skepticism
and outright allegations, Martin has maintained an admirable outlook and
willingness to bend way over backwards to accommodate everyone's needs.

4.  This is an effort that could potentially have fabulous benefits for
everyone whose livelihood depends on this market.

5.  Martin's dedication and level of service is well beyond anything else I
have experienced in any software market and to which I aspire.

His business model (commercial and open source) is very easy for me to
understand.  I hope his vision is rewarded.

Jeff


0
Jeff
1/20/2007 4:12:47 PM
Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:

"If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
unless the development was released as open source."

"derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.

Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what  "derivative 
code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
Regards,
Tom

"Jeff Caspari" <FDFDFDFD@sneakernet.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:3crsh.1356$qN1.94@trndny02...
>> Confusion about the "immense service" contribution (lower fees than
>> others?).
>
> Let's see how I do with this.  In my view:
>
> 1.  The community has always clamored for someone willing to create a free
> version of the model that can be easily available and distributed.  The
> idea, of course is to widen the interest, and eventually the resources
> available to all of us.
>
> 2.  This could be the seed that has allowed other competent models to
> flourish and gain wider appreciation.
>
> 3.  This takes an extraordinary effort that, until now, no one has been 
> able
> or willing to undertake.  Even in the face of all the criticism, 
> skepticism
> and outright allegations, Martin has maintained an admirable outlook and
> willingness to bend way over backwards to accommodate everyone's needs.
>
> 4.  This is an effort that could potentially have fabulous benefits for
> everyone whose livelihood depends on this market.
>
> 5.  Martin's dedication and level of service is well beyond anything else 
> I
> have experienced in any software market and to which I aspire.
>
> His business model (commercial and open source) is very easy for me to
> understand.  I hope his vision is rewarded.
>
> Jeff
>
> 


0
Tom
1/20/2007 4:50:50 PM
"Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message 
news:8qydnZ0A0Ynx1S_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:
>
> "If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
> unless the development was released as open source."
>
> "derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.
>
> Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what  "derivative 
> code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
> Regards,
> Tom
>

 Tom,

    You can use the open source OpenQM to develop your application. However, 
don't plan on distributing(free or not) it with a closed-source version of 
your application. That strictly violates the GPL. If you decide that you 
want to give(plus distribution fees) OpenQM away with your application, then 
you have to make your application free (plus distribution fees) and also 
open source. Thus, develop all you wish on the free version. When you 
actually get to the distribution point, contact Ladybridge or Doug for 
commercial licensing. Once you do, you will probably end up dropping the GPL 
version in order to obtain newer features and better support. The Linux-only 
GPL version is a foot-in-the-door and provides everyone with a way to freely 
port code. There are also developer versions for Windows, if you are 
interested.

Glen
http://picksource.com
http://mvdevcentral.com 


0
Glen
1/20/2007 6:29:33 PM
"Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
news:8qydnZ0A0Ynx1S_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:
>
> "If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
> unless the development was released as open source."
>
> "derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.
>
> Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what  "derivative
> code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
> Regards,
> Tom
>

 Tom,

    You can use the open source OpenQM to develop your application. However,
don't plan on distributing(free or not) it with a closed-source version of
your application. That strictly violates the GPL. If you decide that you
want to give(plus distribution fees) OpenQM away with your application, then
you have to make your application free (plus distribution fees) and also
open source. Thus, develop all you wish on the free version. When you
actually get to the distribution point, contact Ladybridge or Doug for
commercial licensing. Once you do, you will probably end up dropping the GPL
version in order to obtain newer features and better support. The Linux-only
GPL version is a foot-in-the-door and provides everyone with a way to freely
port code. There are also developer versions for Windows, if you are
interested.

Glen
http://picksource.com
http://mvdevcentral.com



0
Glen
1/20/2007 6:30:13 PM
Glen B wrote:
> "Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message 
> news:8qydnZ0A0Ynx1S_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:
>>
>> "If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
>> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
>> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
>> unless the development was released as open source."
>>
>> "derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.
>>
>> Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what  "derivative 
>> code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
> 
>  Tom,
> 
>     You can use the open source OpenQM to develop your application. However, 
> don't plan on distributing(free or not) it with a closed-source version of 
> your application. That strictly violates the GPL. If you decide that you 
> want to give(plus distribution fees) OpenQM away with your application, then 
> you have to make your application free (plus distribution fees) and also 
> open source. Thus, develop all you wish on the free version. When you 
> actually get to the distribution point, contact Ladybridge or Doug for 
> commercial licensing. Once you do, you will probably end up dropping the GPL 
> version in order to obtain newer features and better support. The Linux-only 
> GPL version is a foot-in-the-door and provides everyone with a way to freely 
> port code. There are also developer versions for Windows, if you are 
> interested.
> 
> Glen
> http://picksource.com
> http://mvdevcentral.com 
> 
> 

Glen,

I understand if one distributes a modified version of OpenQM (or any 
GPLed product), those modifications are considered derivative code and 
must be released as open source.  On the other hand, if I create a 
program that runs on an *un-modified* OpenQM, how is that different than 
when Raining Data or IBM (or anyone else) releases a version of their 
product that runs over Linux?  Certainly, those database products are 
not required to be open source just because they're running over an 
open-source Linux system.

Steve Lancour
0
Steve
1/20/2007 6:54:26 PM
Glen - there is no question or argument about a "normal" GPL or any other 
normal software license.
I could no more distribute Linux/U2/D3 or any other licensed product without 
violating something, nor would I.
I am searching for an explanation of this silly phrase "derivative code".
It sure is not "silly" to Martin, and he's the one with all of the lawyers.
Hopefully there is someone out there that has sent "derivative code" back to 
Martin. I'm curious what types of components they were.
If I use a licensed compiler to build some object, that could be looked on 
as "derivative code".
If I use a licensed editor to build a program, that could be looked on as 
"derivative code".
What oh what is the meaning of "derivative code", Martin?
Could someone provide an example or two?
Regards,
Tom

"Glen B" <dfdfg@dfkjdfg.com> wrote in message 
news:htSdnTmHI5Cs_S_YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message 
> news:8qydnZ0A0Ynx1S_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:
>>
>> "If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
>> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
>> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
>> unless the development was released as open source."
>>
>> "derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.
>>
>> Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what 
>> "derivative code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>
> Tom,
>
>    You can use the open source OpenQM to develop your application. 
> However, don't plan on distributing(free or not) it with a closed-source 
> version of your application. That strictly violates the GPL. If you decide 
> that you want to give(plus distribution fees) OpenQM away with your 
> application, then you have to make your application free (plus 
> distribution fees) and also open source. Thus, develop all you wish on the 
> free version. When you actually get to the distribution point, contact 
> Ladybridge or Doug for commercial licensing. Once you do, you will 
> probably end up dropping the GPL version in order to obtain newer features 
> and better support. The Linux-only GPL version is a foot-in-the-door and 
> provides everyone with a way to freely port code. There are also developer 
> versions for Windows, if you are interested.
>
> Glen
> http://picksource.com
> http://mvdevcentral.com
> 


0
Tom
1/21/2007 12:25:19 AM
Hi Henry-

You appear to be confusing the GPL with the LGPL.  If the GCC compiler and 
libraries was GPL then every program compiled with them would be required to 
be GPL by definition.  But as that compiler and libraries are released under 
the LGPL there is no such requirement.  The difference here is that Martin 
has released OpenQM under the GPL not the LGPL which makes every program 
compiled under it a derivitive work.

-Bob


<hbkeultjes@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1169127252.035794.64760@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dale wrote:
>> They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
>> agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
>> applications needing to be open source as well.
>
> While I am not a lawyer and presumably Dale is not either, the tie-in
> between applications and OpenQM that could lead to the requirement for
> having to Open Source applications is fictitious.
>
> The basic requirement is, for example, if this post's EMR provider
> decides to use OpenQM and makes modifications and/or additions to
> OpenQM that it then provides to its customers, for free or at a price,
> it has to post those modifications and/or additions to the OpenQM list.
>
> If Henry makes modifications and/or additions to OpenQM and uses those
> internally only, he has no requirement under the GPL to share that
> code.  .
>
> The GPL is treacherous only because there are too many lawyers who
> absolutely don't understand the concept of Open Source and hence don't
> understand the contractual obligations of the GPL.
>
> Even Microsoft uses some GPL code and I have not seen any evidence of
> Wall Street dumping Microsoft stock because of the fear that its
> biggest money maker, it's Microsoft Office suite of applications,  will
> be drawn in under the GPL.
>
> I go through the Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org to get my
> advise.  I strongly suggest that anyone who has questions about the GPL
> do likewise and also use their *state* bar association to find a lawyer
> who is competent in giving GPL advise.  By making such a specific
> *written* request you give yourself a way to sue for incompetence if a
> lawyer mishandles your requirement, especially by advising against the
> GPL when there is no sound legal reason to do so and as a consequence
> your business is damaged because business opportunities are missed.
>
> Henry Keultjes
> Database Scientifics Project http://www.ncolug.org/ppc.htm
> Mansfield Ohio USA
> Direct 419-525-1111
>



0
me
1/21/2007 2:35:39 AM
It isn't even so much "them" as the whole dual-licence concept, and the
fact that the product IS offered via GPL. The "threat" may not come
from "them" so much as "anyone" who takes a hankering to your software
- be it someone bloody minded, or your "worst" competitor

Whilst we didn't employ high-powered SCO-style lawyers from the USA, we
did retain one of Australia's leading IP & Technology practices (I now
KNOW how come lawyers can afford those nice looking offices overlooking
Sydney Harbour). I would suggest it may be worthwhile investing the
$10-20K to obtain a professional opinion, but YMMV.

Ultimately, until (if?) the licence is tested in a court of law (and
remember there are MANY jurisdictions!) from a number of aspects,
questions may remain, and the people that may come chasing via the GPL
have much deeper pockets & more resources than I have.
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they are
> not trying something sneaky.
> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
> Tom
>
> "Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message
> news:1169234771.553692.230440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
> >> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
> >> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to
> >> distribute the product, you must release your own software under the
> >> terms
> >> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
> >>
> >> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as
> >> distributed,
> >> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
> >> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will never
> >> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on it,
> >> nor
> >> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
> >> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license. Never
> >> going
> >> to happen.
> >> Good luck expanding your user base.
> >> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the
> >> lawyers
> >> at SCO?
> >> Regards,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and you
> > don't had to worry about it.
> >
> > Rick
> >

0
Ross
1/21/2007 5:46:55 AM
Thanks Ross,
This whole thing seems very murky, and very risky.
Let's suppose that I have a client with a commercial OpenQM system. I (or 
another contractor) produce something for them (very confidential code) on a 
open source version of OpenQM. Now - is it sent to Martin? The answer is no, 
as it's confidential to the client. So now someone has broken the license, 
but Martin goes after the mega bucks client instead of the poor contractors. 
Bad news all around.
Therefore, I'm back to my original recommendation. Stay as far away from 
this Open QuagMire (pun intended) system as possible. Stay with the main 
players (IBM, RD, etc.).
Of course, until the first lawsuit judgment against a customer is rendered, 
we could all just ignore it and wait to get caught.
Not me. Not worth my reputation.
Regards,
Tom

"Ross Ferris" <rossf@stamina.com.au> wrote in message 
news:1169358415.580218.6610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> It isn't even so much "them" as the whole dual-licence concept, and the
> fact that the product IS offered via GPL. The "threat" may not come
> from "them" so much as "anyone" who takes a hankering to your software
> - be it someone bloody minded, or your "worst" competitor
>
> Whilst we didn't employ high-powered SCO-style lawyers from the USA, we
> did retain one of Australia's leading IP & Technology practices (I now
> KNOW how come lawyers can afford those nice looking offices overlooking
> Sydney Harbour). I would suggest it may be worthwhile investing the
> $10-20K to obtain a professional opinion, but YMMV.
>
> Ultimately, until (if?) the licence is tested in a court of law (and
> remember there are MANY jurisdictions!) from a number of aspects,
> questions may remain, and the people that may come chasing via the GPL
> have much deeper pockets & more resources than I have.
> Tom Phillips wrote:
>> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
>> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
>> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they 
>> are
>> not trying something sneaky.
>> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
>> Tom
>>
>> "Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169234771.553692.230440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
>> >> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
>> >> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come 
>> >> to
>> >> distribute the product, you must release your own software under the
>> >> terms
>> >> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
>> >>
>> >> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as
>> >> distributed,
>> >> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
>> >> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will never
>> >> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on it,
>> >> nor
>> >> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
>> >> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license. Never
>> >> going
>> >> to happen.
>> >> Good luck expanding your user base.
>> >> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the
>> >> lawyers
>> >> at SCO?
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Tom,
>> >
>> > Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and you
>> > don't had to worry about it.
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
> 


0
Tom
1/21/2007 8:50:45 AM
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Martin - a simple question -
> If I develop a new application using the open source version of OpenQM, and
> then ship that code to a client site who is using the commercial license
> version of OpenQM, what needs to be shipped to you?

Nothing. Regardless of the conditions of the GPL, transfer of software
between the two formats is banned by our own licence conditions and we
do not even guarantee that programs built on one will run on the other.
There is, however, nothing to stop you providing the application in
private source form to the user to compile. In this case, you would not
need to release it publicly.

The safest approach is to purchase a single user commercial licence for
your development.

If you made changes to the QM open source itself, you would need to
release these under the GPL.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/21/2007 9:16:54 AM
Chandru Murthi wrote:
> in that case, why do you even have an Open source version? I
> see no problems with your commercial version licence.

When we released the open source, it was in the hope that like minded
developers with something that they always wanted to see in multivalue
environments would port it to QM and donate it back to the master
source so that everyone benefits. This was not a way to get development
done for free but a way by which things we would never have done (or
even have thought of) might find there way into the product. The
advantage to the open source developer is that he gets everyone else's
developments in return for his work.

In reality (not the product!), there have been very few such
developments. The open source rapidly turned into a "what can I get for
free" scenario. We have come very close to terminating it several times
as the costs of integrating, documenting and maintaining the
developments that we have received plus the cost of actually releasing
the source far outweigh the gains. Having said this, let me add that we
are very grateful for the items that we have received.

Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems.

0
Martin
1/21/2007 9:22:54 AM
"Tom Phillips" wrote:
>Martin: here is the phrase in question:
>"You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to 
>distribute the product, you must release your own software under the terms 
>of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."

Is it fair to say that the only change required is that software
distributed with OpenQM must be open source?  I have my own problems
with the license but if that's the real intent then a simple change
may solve the whole problem.  As written, if you just use OpenQM to
develop your software then even if you distribute using commercial QM,
you need to distribute your source as GPL.  I don't believe that's the
intent but that's the way it reads.

One of the technical benefits of using OpenQM is that the source is
available for you to see how it works underneath.  If you don't like
the way something works then you can change it, but proper coding
should be done so that flags will allow your mods to be used without
affecting the defined functionality.  When a change like this is made,
the agreement compels the developer to submit changes to Ladybridge,
and those changes then become the property of Ladybridge, whether they
actually become a part of the product or not.  Unless you have intent
to change the way the DBMS itself works then OpenQM doesn't really
offer you anything.

One of the business benefits of OpenQM is that the source is available
in case Ladybridge goes away, and that makes business people feel a
little better.  In all of these years I don't think it would have
mattered if source was available or not.  If a platform is no longer
supported, companies much prefer to get onto something that is.  So
the reality is that source doesn't mean a thing, and again, OpenQM
means nothing to a company that needs a commercial database.

The notion of OpenQM is "potentially" a great marketing vehicle but
all in all it means nothing for the VARs and end-users using software
in this market.  I think that's a source of great confusion.  What
OpenQM does show us is that there are people in the community willing
to contribute to the improvement of a low-cost, feature-reach, and
highly stable alternative to the traditional offerings.  As much as
Martin and Ladybridge supporters talk up the value of OpenQM, I think
they're missing the proverbial boat when it comes to explaining the
real benefits that have been realized with this model.  The software
needs to be marketed more as a usable platform, with less focus on the
fact that OSS is helping the software to become usable, and more focus
on stories of successful migrations to the commercial offering.  The
OSS message only seems to confuse people - and results in these "I
refuse to use this software" sort of positions.

A great many MV business applications are open source direct from the
VAR.  We appreciate Pick because we can make adhoc mods to an end-user
environment - and we can only do that when we have the source on the
end-user system.  The funny thing is that to this day very few MV VARs
will advertise their source as Open Source because too many people
confuse open/liberty with open/freebeer.  If you tell your client
their software is open source they probably won't want to give it to
their friends, but developers are afraid they will.  The thing that
legally stops open source software from walking away is a legal
agreement that says the source is available but it can only be used
while fees are paid to the authors.  You can apply any legal terms you
want to your software, even open source.  Martin is proving that by
providing open source tied to terms that some find disagreeable, and
rather than violating those terms, people are refusing to use the
software.  Personally I find that reassuring and encouraging because
it means that at least some people truly respect these terms, even
though it would be easy (and completely unethical) to violate the
terms.  Just for reference, there are many software apps out there now
that are Open Source, but they also link usage of the software with
support fees and other agreements.  I encourage anyone looking at this
model to investigate how successful these other companies have been at
protecting their assets and generating revenue.  You/we might find
that the OSS model might attract more revenue-generating companies,
compared to companies that take the software and run.  In that case,
maybe it's worth it to just write off the loss.  If your package is
complex enough, eventually you may find people other there openly (and
stupidly) looking for support for the software they stole from you.

I dunno, I think there are nuances of this game that have still been
unexplored.  It should be fun to see where it goes.

T
0
Tony
1/21/2007 9:30:40 AM
Sorry guys, this is where the whole thing goes wrong and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.  We want a better pricing so some people
"take" an extreme form of a better pricing model which causes the MV
vendors to choke at the complete loss and we never even get to meet in
the middle.  Without some notion of equity and fair play this isn't
going to work.

This is a lot like the confusion between Open Source and free beer.
When people ask me if I'm going to "open source" something what
they're really asking is when am I going to make it free so that they
can give it to all of their clients.  Frankly my response is similar
to the MV vendors.  Screw that.

When we can somehow confirm that more open (dare I say liberal?)
policies for source and licenses won't be abused, I'm sure we'll see
better prices and more such open policies.  Until then all we're
seeing is abuse at the first opportunity, even in the form of
retribution.

T


"Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Simon Verona wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still,
>> whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to
>> support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent
>> connection.
>>
>> But as you say, you can take advantage.
>>
>> We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due to
>> extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but whilst
>> they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking advantage!
>>
>> Simon
>> "Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 19, 1:04 am, mg.ry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Is this not the nadir of our industray?
>> >> I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
>> >> Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
>> >> We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
>> >> dustbin!
>> >> if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper solutioj....
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
>> > use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
>> > better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
>> > client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
>> > not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
>> > (jeez easy to say isnt it ;)
>> >
>
>
>Absolutely !!
>
>However it is a double edged sword, We have systems based arround
>phantoms using the GCI to do a c call for some ip messaging and clients
>on the front connecting back to the messenger. This means we have
>customers with 1000 desktops running off 30 or 40 phantoms on a 4 user
>licence.  Great for costs, but when i approach IBM saying hey this is a
>big customer and we have a few problems and need your help, they say
>erm 4 licences ?  bottom of the list ......
>
>:(

0
Tony
1/21/2007 9:30:40 AM
Thanks for your comments Tony. Direct and to the point as usual.
There is sometimes an advantage to having source to the OS.
I remember fixing bugs in a few commands in the DM/BP file when we first 
installed D3/NT.
But I called and got RD permission first.
I remember commenting to J.P. at the time that I was tempted to re-write it 
all, as it was some of the most convoluted stuff I had seen in years. He 
said - no way - unless RD paid me to do it. Well, we know how that worked 
out. At least, I now know why they have so many bugs in the product. Just 
reading the code in BP it gave me gas and a headache.
Regards,
Tom

"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001@sneakemail.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:dr96r25rc8b9n8puif1ejhg3od71t123ah@4ax.com...
> "Tom Phillips" wrote:
>>Martin: here is the phrase in question:
>>"You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you come to
>>distribute the product, you must release your own software under the terms
>>of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
>
> Is it fair to say that the only change required is that software
> distributed with OpenQM must be open source?  I have my own problems
> with the license but if that's the real intent then a simple change
> may solve the whole problem.  As written, if you just use OpenQM to
> develop your software then even if you distribute using commercial QM,
> you need to distribute your source as GPL.  I don't believe that's the
> intent but that's the way it reads.
>
> One of the technical benefits of using OpenQM is that the source is
> available for you to see how it works underneath.  If you don't like
> the way something works then you can change it, but proper coding
> should be done so that flags will allow your mods to be used without
> affecting the defined functionality.  When a change like this is made,
> the agreement compels the developer to submit changes to Ladybridge,
> and those changes then become the property of Ladybridge, whether they
> actually become a part of the product or not.  Unless you have intent
> to change the way the DBMS itself works then OpenQM doesn't really
> offer you anything.
>
> One of the business benefits of OpenQM is that the source is available
> in case Ladybridge goes away, and that makes business people feel a
> little better.  In all of these years I don't think it would have
> mattered if source was available or not.  If a platform is no longer
> supported, companies much prefer to get onto something that is.  So
> the reality is that source doesn't mean a thing, and again, OpenQM
> means nothing to a company that needs a commercial database.
>
> The notion of OpenQM is "potentially" a great marketing vehicle but
> all in all it means nothing for the VARs and end-users using software
> in this market.  I think that's a source of great confusion.  What
> OpenQM does show us is that there are people in the community willing
> to contribute to the improvement of a low-cost, feature-reach, and
> highly stable alternative to the traditional offerings.  As much as
> Martin and Ladybridge supporters talk up the value of OpenQM, I think
> they're missing the proverbial boat when it comes to explaining the
> real benefits that have been realized with this model.  The software
> needs to be marketed more as a usable platform, with less focus on the
> fact that OSS is helping the software to become usable, and more focus
> on stories of successful migrations to the commercial offering.  The
> OSS message only seems to confuse people - and results in these "I
> refuse to use this software" sort of positions.
>
> A great many MV business applications are open source direct from the
> VAR.  We appreciate Pick because we can make adhoc mods to an end-user
> environment - and we can only do that when we have the source on the
> end-user system.  The funny thing is that to this day very few MV VARs
> will advertise their source as Open Source because too many people
> confuse open/liberty with open/freebeer.  If you tell your client
> their software is open source they probably won't want to give it to
> their friends, but developers are afraid they will.  The thing that
> legally stops open source software from walking away is a legal
> agreement that says the source is available but it can only be used
> while fees are paid to the authors.  You can apply any legal terms you
> want to your software, even open source.  Martin is proving that by
> providing open source tied to terms that some find disagreeable, and
> rather than violating those terms, people are refusing to use the
> software.  Personally I find that reassuring and encouraging because
> it means that at least some people truly respect these terms, even
> though it would be easy (and completely unethical) to violate the
> terms.  Just for reference, there are many software apps out there now
> that are Open Source, but they also link usage of the software with
> support fees and other agreements.  I encourage anyone looking at this
> model to investigate how successful these other companies have been at
> protecting their assets and generating revenue.  You/we might find
> that the OSS model might attract more revenue-generating companies,
> compared to companies that take the software and run.  In that case,
> maybe it's worth it to just write off the loss.  If your package is
> complex enough, eventually you may find people other there openly (and
> stupidly) looking for support for the software they stole from you.
>
> I dunno, I think there are nuances of this game that have still been
> unexplored.  It should be fun to see where it goes.
>
> T 


0
Tom
1/21/2007 9:57:12 AM
Tom,

This must be the time of year for these convoluted discussions about
the QM licence!

Without reference to any particular legal knowledge - I have always
pictured it thus:-

1. In order to run my programs I need QM - my programs, application,
whatever are not independent.
2. If I sell my programs then my customer needs a commercial QM licence
3. If I am giving away the product and the source, I can use the GPL
licence and thus the GPL licence QM

I hope that this agrees with the interpretation of the licence holders.
It is not, currently, and isue for me since I am using QM for a
personal project and use the GPL one quite happily.

Regards
Mike

Tom Phillips wrote:
> Glen - there is no question or argument about a "normal" GPL or any other
> normal software license.
> I could no more distribute Linux/U2/D3 or any other licensed product without
> violating something, nor would I.
> I am searching for an explanation of this silly phrase "derivative code".
> It sure is not "silly" to Martin, and he's the one with all of the lawyers.
> Hopefully there is someone out there that has sent "derivative code" back to
> Martin. I'm curious what types of components they were.
> If I use a licensed compiler to build some object, that could be looked on
> as "derivative code".
> If I use a licensed editor to build a program, that could be looked on as
> "derivative code".
> What oh what is the meaning of "derivative code", Martin?
> Could someone provide an example or two?
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> "Glen B" <dfdfg@dfkjdfg.com> wrote in message
> news:htSdnTmHI5Cs_S_YnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > "Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
> > news:8qydnZ0A0Ynx1S_YnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> Jeff - here's part of what Martin posted above:
> >>
> >> "If a user uses the open source to build an application that they then
> >> release they get into the difficult area of "derivative code". Our
> >> advisors tell us that this would constitute a violation of the GPL
> >> unless the development was released as open source."
> >>
> >> "derivative code" - that's the troubling phrase.
> >>
> >> Question: do you use the open source version, and if so, what
> >> "derivative code" have you sent to Martin and his people?
> >> Regards,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> >    You can use the open source OpenQM to develop your application.
> > However, don't plan on distributing(free or not) it with a closed-source
> > version of your application. That strictly violates the GPL. If you decide
> > that you want to give(plus distribution fees) OpenQM away with your
> > application, then you have to make your application free (plus
> > distribution fees) and also open source. Thus, develop all you wish on the
> > free version. When you actually get to the distribution point, contact
> > Ladybridge or Doug for commercial licensing. Once you do, you will
> > probably end up dropping the GPL version in order to obtain newer features
> > and better support. The Linux-only GPL version is a foot-in-the-door and
> > provides everyone with a way to freely port code. There are also developer
> > versions for Windows, if you are interested.
> >
> > Glen
> > http://picksource.com
> > http://mvdevcentral.com
> >

0
mg
1/21/2007 4:47:23 PM
Hi Tom
I think that you are being a little unfair in confusing the OpenQM product
with the commercial product.

My rule is simpkle NEVER USE OPEN SOURCE ANYTHING FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT.  There is no free lunch.  Martin has done the right thing by
the open source community in letting them see how something is built so they
can understand, comment etc.  Personally I would like to see the Print TAB
statement that we had on the Micromax as it would vastly improves Pick Basic
Print statements.  However I am not going to write it myself for free, or at
all for that matter.

I believe that you are unlikely to fully understand IBM, Microsoft, Novell
licences any more than the QM commercial licence.  Also if there was
something sneaky as you suggest could be possible it would be argued to be
illegal, but worse still if there was it would put LadyBridge out of
business.  So it simply isn't a logical argument.

By the way if you think RD, IBM et al protects you think again.  I have had
my software stolen by a now defunct Pick distributer and a couple of end
users.  If you think that you can afford to fight a case where a thief with
deep pockets sends a legal letter stating that the product is "embodied in
goods" and therefore not separate from the computer, go for it.  Furthermore
be very careful who paid for the computer  On two separate occasions I have
believed that I sold a computer and software to Company XXX, however when
the receivers came in it was claimed that the cheque came from a trust
independent from Company XXX and the people just picked up the computers and
walked off legally.  They then continued to use the software and computers
for another business.  In one instance where I had massive documentation and
a beautiful case my legal advice was that I had a 75% to 80% chance of
winning and that I would be in court in NSW (1500km away) for 3 to 5 years
at a cost o $500,000 to $750,000.  There is the next rub, if you win and are
granted costs, it does not mean that your bills will be paid.  Court costs
are just a broad brush and are far less than actual payments, plus you then
have to collect them which is a totally separate case which costs more and
if the party declares bankruptcy having put everything in his wife's name,
you lose again.

In summary pay for the product you need and you are as well protected as the
next consumer.  QM looks bloody good and has a decent user base so use it if
it fits.

Peter McMurray
"Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
news:QbmdndLWw-f1tC7YnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
> Thanks Ross,
> This whole thing seems very murky, and very risky.
> Let's suppose that I have a client with a commercial OpenQM system. I (or
> another contractor) produce something for them (very confidential code) on
a
> open source version of OpenQM. Now - is it sent to Martin? The answer is
no,
> as it's confidential to the client. So now someone has broken the license,
> but Martin goes after the mega bucks client instead of the poor
contractors.
> Bad news all around.
> Therefore, I'm back to my original recommendation. Stay as far away from
> this Open QuagMire (pun intended) system as possible. Stay with the main
> players (IBM, RD, etc.).
> Of course, until the first lawsuit judgment against a customer is
rendered,
> we could all just ignore it and wait to get caught.
> Not me. Not worth my reputation.
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> "Ross Ferris" <rossf@stamina.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1169358415.580218.6610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > It isn't even so much "them" as the whole dual-licence concept, and the
> > fact that the product IS offered via GPL. The "threat" may not come
> > from "them" so much as "anyone" who takes a hankering to your software
> > - be it someone bloody minded, or your "worst" competitor
> >
> > Whilst we didn't employ high-powered SCO-style lawyers from the USA, we
> > did retain one of Australia's leading IP & Technology practices (I now
> > KNOW how come lawyers can afford those nice looking offices overlooking
> > Sydney Harbour). I would suggest it may be worthwhile investing the
> > $10-20K to obtain a professional opinion, but YMMV.
> >
> > Ultimately, until (if?) the licence is tested in a court of law (and
> > remember there are MANY jurisdictions!) from a number of aspects,
> > questions may remain, and the people that may come chasing via the GPL
> > have much deeper pockets & more resources than I have.
> > Tom Phillips wrote:
> >> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
> >> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
> >> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that they
> >> are
> >> not trying something sneaky.
> >> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> "Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1169234771.553692.230440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
> >> >> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
> >> >> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you
come
> >> >> to
> >> >> distribute the product, you must release your own software under the
> >> >> terms
> >> >> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
> >> >>
> >> >> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as
> >> >> distributed,
> >> >> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
> >> >> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will
never
> >> >> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on
it,
> >> >> nor
> >> >> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
> >> >> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license.
Never
> >> >> going
> >> >> to happen.
> >> >> Good luck expanding your user base.
> >> >> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from the
> >> >> lawyers
> >> >> at SCO?
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Tom
> >> >>
> >> >> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in
> >> >> messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Tom,
> >> >
> >> > Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and
you
> >> > don't had to worry about it.
> >> >
> >> > Rick
> >> >
> >
>
>


0
Excalibur
1/22/2007 1:41:24 AM
Hi,

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:41:24 GMT, "Excalibur"
<excalibur21@bigpond.com> wrote:

>  Personally I would like to see the Print TAB
>statement that we had on the Micromax as it would vastly improves Pick Basic
>Print statements.  

Micromax?   Surely not....  No.  Bruce tells me "AWA circa 1980". But
then again, process control?      Maybe......

Pray tell, what did/does PRINT TAB actually do?    For I have recently
seen....

Jaye
0
infoattaloncsdotcomd
1/22/2007 2:25:01 AM
Good advice Peter.
I'll continue to work on client supplied systems and pass the legal buck.
Thanks, Tom

"Excalibur" <excalibur21@bigpond.com> wrote in message 
news:8DUsh.4345$u8.3803@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi Tom
> I think that you are being a little unfair in confusing the OpenQM product
> with the commercial product.
>
> My rule is simpkle NEVER USE OPEN SOURCE ANYTHING FOR COMMERCIAL
> DEVELOPMENT.  There is no free lunch.  Martin has done the right thing by
> the open source community in letting them see how something is built so 
> they
> can understand, comment etc.  Personally I would like to see the Print TAB
> statement that we had on the Micromax as it would vastly improves Pick 
> Basic
> Print statements.  However I am not going to write it myself for free, or 
> at
> all for that matter.
>
> I believe that you are unlikely to fully understand IBM, Microsoft, Novell
> licences any more than the QM commercial licence.  Also if there was
> something sneaky as you suggest could be possible it would be argued to be
> illegal, but worse still if there was it would put LadyBridge out of
> business.  So it simply isn't a logical argument.
>
> By the way if you think RD, IBM et al protects you think again.  I have 
> had
> my software stolen by a now defunct Pick distributer and a couple of end
> users.  If you think that you can afford to fight a case where a thief 
> with
> deep pockets sends a legal letter stating that the product is "embodied in
> goods" and therefore not separate from the computer, go for it. 
> Furthermore
> be very careful who paid for the computer  On two separate occasions I 
> have
> believed that I sold a computer and software to Company XXX, however when
> the receivers came in it was claimed that the cheque came from a trust
> independent from Company XXX and the people just picked up the computers 
> and
> walked off legally.  They then continued to use the software and computers
> for another business.  In one instance where I had massive documentation 
> and
> a beautiful case my legal advice was that I had a 75% to 80% chance of
> winning and that I would be in court in NSW (1500km away) for 3 to 5 years
> at a cost o $500,000 to $750,000.  There is the next rub, if you win and 
> are
> granted costs, it does not mean that your bills will be paid.  Court costs
> are just a broad brush and are far less than actual payments, plus you 
> then
> have to collect them which is a totally separate case which costs more and
> if the party declares bankruptcy having put everything in his wife's name,
> you lose again.
>
> In summary pay for the product you need and you are as well protected as 
> the
> next consumer.  QM looks bloody good and has a decent user base so use it 
> if
> it fits.
>
> Peter McMurray
> "Tom Phillips" <squash@computer.org> wrote in message
> news:QbmdndLWw-f1tC7YnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Thanks Ross,
>> This whole thing seems very murky, and very risky.
>> Let's suppose that I have a client with a commercial OpenQM system. I (or
>> another contractor) produce something for them (very confidential code) 
>> on
> a
>> open source version of OpenQM. Now - is it sent to Martin? The answer is
> no,
>> as it's confidential to the client. So now someone has broken the 
>> license,
>> but Martin goes after the mega bucks client instead of the poor
> contractors.
>> Bad news all around.
>> Therefore, I'm back to my original recommendation. Stay as far away from
>> this Open QuagMire (pun intended) system as possible. Stay with the main
>> players (IBM, RD, etc.).
>> Of course, until the first lawsuit judgment against a customer is
> rendered,
>> we could all just ignore it and wait to get caught.
>> Not me. Not worth my reputation.
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>>
>> "Ross Ferris" <rossf@stamina.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:1169358415.580218.6610@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> > It isn't even so much "them" as the whole dual-licence concept, and the
>> > fact that the product IS offered via GPL. The "threat" may not come
>> > from "them" so much as "anyone" who takes a hankering to your software
>> > - be it someone bloody minded, or your "worst" competitor
>> >
>> > Whilst we didn't employ high-powered SCO-style lawyers from the USA, we
>> > did retain one of Australia's leading IP & Technology practices (I now
>> > KNOW how come lawyers can afford those nice looking offices overlooking
>> > Sydney Harbour). I would suggest it may be worthwhile investing the
>> > $10-20K to obtain a professional opinion, but YMMV.
>> >
>> > Ultimately, until (if?) the licence is tested in a court of law (and
>> > remember there are MANY jurisdictions!) from a number of aspects,
>> > questions may remain, and the people that may come chasing via the GPL
>> > have much deeper pockets & more resources than I have.
>> > Tom Phillips wrote:
>> >> Rick - before this thread - I was considering it.
>> >> Now I would need to spend serious money to have a very good lawyer go
>> >> through their commercial license agreement, just to make sure that 
>> >> they
>> >> are
>> >> not trying something sneaky.
>> >> I've lost any trust in them at this point.
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >> "Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1169234771.553692.230440@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jan 19, 1:57 pm, "Tom Phillips" <squ...@computer.org> wrote:
>> >> >> Martin: here is the phrase in question:
>> >> >> "You may do the development work using the GPL version. When you
> come
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> distribute the product, you must release your own software under 
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> terms
>> >> >> of the GPL. The end user is also bound by the terms of the GPL."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I fully understand modifying any code that's part of OpenQM as
>> >> >> distributed,
>> >> >> and sending it back to the OpenQM group.
>> >> >> Sending you or yours my applications developed under OpenQM will
> never
>> >> >> happen, so it's never,ever for me touching anything with OpenQM on
> it,
>> >> >> nor
>> >> >> will I ever recommend it to any clients.
>> >> >> That's like IBM or RD wanting my apps as part of their license.
> Never
>> >> >> going
>> >> >> to happen.
>> >> >> Good luck expanding your user base.
>> >> >> This is a "cheap shot", but are your lawyers getting advice from 
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> lawyers
>> >> >> at SCO?
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Tom
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Martin Phillips" <MartinPhill...@ladybridge.com> wrote in
>> >> >> messagenews:1169229879.161044.60020@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Tom,
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't use the open source version.  Buy the Commerical verision and
> you
>> >> > don't had to worry about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Rick
>> >> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Tom
1/22/2007 3:36:14 AM
Hi
Micromax ( Microstar in the States) was a marvellous machine, extremely well
made.  It had multi-user Basic and ISAM files in 1978 or 79. By the early
1980's it had Btree files which were fantastic for speed.  First ones had
dual 8 inch floppies and we ran the Clinical Chemistry Dept testing 24/7 for
Royal Hobart on these, complete with full Health Dept Costing and the last
14000 patient records, for many years.  We sold the first of the big
machines in Australia must have been March 1983 - Micromax 3000 - 256k ram,
32Mb hard disk with a hand brake and 5 users.  The machine worked so well on
20,000 debtors that we picked up significant business from the BP IBM
mainframe.  All this cost $30,000 installed against $80,000 to $120,000 for
a Reality.

Luke Webber was an ace on the guts of the machine code, and a chap called
John, in Adelaide I think, wrote a PickBasic converter for the code.  One of
their senior chaps finished working at Pick systems when the IBM PC
clobbered the quality PC market.

The TAB command was great when doing a print instead of the machinations
that one goes through with Pick Basic trying to make sure that you have got
exactly the right number of characters right or left masked to end up in the
correct box on a cheque or an invoice etc.  One simply TABBED to the correct
position and printed the variable with its correct masking not some fudge to
get the next position correct.  Exactly as one does with a typewriter Tab
except that one could of course have different TABs for any line.

Peter McMurray


<infoattaloncsdotcomdotau> wrote in message
news:qr78r2lk7vv13eevosd7fk3rjgdvtv743c@4ax.com...
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 01:41:24 GMT, "Excalibur"
> <excalibur21@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >  Personally I would like to see the Print TAB
> >statement that we had on the Micromax as it would vastly improves Pick
Basic
> >Print statements.
>
> Micromax?   Surely not....  No.  Bruce tells me "AWA circa 1980". But
> then again, process control?      Maybe......
>
> Pray tell, what did/does PRINT TAB actually do?    For I have recently
> seen....
>
> Jaye


0
Excalibur
1/22/2007 6:53:34 AM
Let's try to bring this to a close. We are beginning to go around in
circles....

Mike Ryder summed it all up perfect when he wrote:
> 1. In order to run my programs I need QM - my programs, application,
> whatever are not independent.
> 2. If I sell my programs then my customer needs a commercial QM licence
> 3. If I am giving away the product and the source, I can use the GPL
> licence and thus the GPL licence QM

There are two separate rules that affect what you can do:

1. The GPL sets out how the open source can be used and what you must
do if you wish to distribute an application. The various postings that
reference the difference between the GPL and LGPL are relevant to this.
In our view, the open source is for the expert user who needs to modify
the core components of QM to do something that we never envisaged.

As one contributor observed, there is frequent confusion between "open
source" and "free". The GPL explicitly draws this distinction and makes
it clear that we are entitled to charge for the open source if we wish
(something that has crossed our minds).

2. Our own software licence strictly bans moving applications between
the open source and the commercial product. You are free to develop on
the open source but must obtain a commercial licence before you
distribute the application to users of the commercial product. A single
user licence will do.

Related to this, is a very important point that I made in a response
yesterday. We give absolutely no guarantee about compatibility between
the two versions of QM. Indeed, there are developments in the pipeline
that will not appear in the open source and which may end up making the
two incompatible at the compiled object code level even though they
originate from a single source stream.


One posting in this thread talked about the need for open source to
allow self-fixing of bugs. We have received several comments about the
speed of our response to support calls. It is highly likely that we
could have a fix for a bug out before an open source user has even
found where to look. The open source should not be looked on as a way
to do your own maintenance.


Finally, to put Tom Phillips' mind to rest, we have no interest in
trying to grab copies of application developers' source code or
interfere in any other way with their business. Commercial QM users
purchase a licence in exactly the same way as from other vendors and
then go about their business as usual. QM is sufficiently reliable that
we never hear from most clients again unless we ask how they are
getting on. And, remember that QM has no mandatory maintenance
contracts so you are not paying for a support service that you
hopefully never need.


End of subject? Hopefully... Until this time next year, anyway.


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems

0
Martin
1/22/2007 8:54:06 AM
Tony

I agree...

I've pointed this out to my vendor (you know who it is) on several ocassions 
and been told "well if you can get it to work like that then it's fine by 
us".

If everybody did what I did then that vendor would either go broke, or come 
up with an alternative licencing plan.

I'm happy to pay more for the licence - just not on a 1:1 basis which is 
uncompetitive..... There has to be a middle ground...

Simon
"Tony Gravagno" <g6q3x9lu53001@sneakemail.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:1v02r2p9lkcmnjbm0a32ojhj636d1uv2tt@4ax.com...
> Sorry guys, this is where the whole thing goes wrong and absolute
> power corrupts absolutely.  We want a better pricing so some people
> "take" an extreme form of a better pricing model which causes the MV
> vendors to choke at the complete loss and we never even get to meet in
> the middle.  Without some notion of equity and fair play this isn't
> going to work.
>
> This is a lot like the confusion between Open Source and free beer.
> When people ask me if I'm going to "open source" something what
> they're really asking is when am I going to make it free so that they
> can give it to all of their clients.  Frankly my response is similar
> to the MV vendors.  Screw that.
>
> When we can somehow confirm that more open (dare I say liberal?)
> policies for source and licenses won't be abused, I'm sure we'll see
> better prices and more such open policies.  Until then all we're
> seeing is abuse at the first opportunity, even in the form of
> retribution.
>
> T
>
>
> "Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Simon Verona wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still,
>>> whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to
>>> support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> But as you say, you can take advantage.
>>>
>>> We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due 
>>> to
>>> extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but 
>>> whilst
>>> they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking 
>>> advantage!
>>>
>>> Simon
>>> "Symeon" <symeonb@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Jan 19, 1:04 am, mg.ry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> >> Is this not the nadir of our industray?
>>> >> I don't want to pay the license fees for the product that I have?
>>> >> Yes, there are *cheaper* solutions but should we propose them?
>>> >> We are great danger, by such actions,of consigning ourselves to the
>>> >> dustbin!
>>> >> if I were an ORA bod, I would not be looking for a cheaper 
>>> >> solutioj....
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Good point - Also i think the competition are not cheaper because they
>>> > use cheaper databases, but because they utilise the licencing in a
>>> > better manner - i.e. they will probably have client/server or thin
>>> > client apps, which reduces the licensing requirement. I know this is
>>> > not what the OP wants to know, but maybe it is time to re architect
>>> > (jeez easy to say isnt it ;)
>>> >
>>
>>
>>Absolutely !!
>>
>>However it is a double edged sword, We have systems based arround
>>phantoms using the GCI to do a c call for some ip messaging and clients
>>on the front connecting back to the messenger. This means we have
>>customers with 1000 desktops running off 30 or 40 phantoms on a 4 user
>>licence.  Great for costs, but when i approach IBM saying hey this is a
>>big customer and we have a few problems and need your help, they say
>>erm 4 licences ?  bottom of the list ......
>>
>>:(
> 


0
Simon
1/22/2007 10:23:34 AM
Sounds like IBM at least recognise the issue..

Simon
"Rick Weiser" <rickw@designbais.com> wrote in message 
news:1169231585.173595.213270@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 8:13 am, "Simon Verona" <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>> It is interesting that the MV pricing model seems to be per-seat still,
>> whereas many other database have other licence models - particularly to
>> support web or client/server apps that don't maintain a persistent
>> connection.
>>
>> But as you say, you can take advantage.
>>
>> We now only require a single licence per server to run our software due 
>> to
>> extreme licence pooling! - this can't be good for the MV vendor, but 
>> whilst
>> they maintain per-seat licencing I don't feel guilty in taking advantage!
>>
>> Simon"Symeon" <syme...@gmail.com> wrote in 
>> messagenews:1169206375.393431.94610@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>
> Simon,
>
> IBM has changed their User Licenses to include a pooling license.  We
> have inquired about this and here is a clip from their handbooks that
> they sent us:
>
> U2 Transaction Document (contract)
> A. Licenses granted are determined by the number of users for Workgroup
> and Enterprise edition and by the number of sessions for Server
> edition. Users are based on the maximum number of concurrent
> individuals accessing the program via one or more connections. Sessions
> are based on the number of concurrent users making a single connection
> to the program; additional connections per session are available as a
> chargeable feature. In addition, Connection Pooling licenses are
> available as a chargeable feature to allow client programs to send
> requests through a web server to a shared set of persistent database
> connections and are separate from concurrent users or sessions.
>
> B. Customers are required to purchase a number of licenses equal to the
> maximum number of concurrent solution users. If either third party or
> in-house multiplexing software or hardware is used in conjunction with
> U2, you will be required to purchase the number of licenses equal to
> the actual number of licenses you would have used without multiplexing
> software.
>
> C. Regardless of the technology used for connection pooling, IBM
> connection pooling licensing and charges apply, subject to the
> applicable OEM contract discount if any.
>
>
> U2 Handbook
> As of UniData 7.1 and UniVerse 10.1.16, Connection Pooling is available
> as a chargeable feature. Connection Pooling works in conjunction with
> UniObjects for .NET and UniObjects for Java to provide non-persistent
> client connections to the database for n-Tier applications. The pricing
> unit is per connection pool.
>
> Note: The Enterprise Edition includes two (2) free connection pools.
>
> Connection Pooling Requirement
>
> Regardless of the technology used for connection pooling, IBM
> connection pooling licensing and charges apply subject to any
> applicable OEM contract discount. This includes using device licensing
> technology to implement connection pooling. RedBack Webshares provide
> connection pooling for RedBack.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Rick Weiser
> DesignBais International
> 


0
Simon
1/22/2007 10:25:06 AM
Tony Gravagno wrote:

> Sorry guys, this is where the whole thing goes wrong and absolute
> power corrupts absolutely.  We want a better pricing so some people
> "take" an extreme form of a better pricing model which causes the MV
> vendors to choke at the complete loss and we never even get to meet in
> the middle.  Without some notion of equity and fair play this isn't
> going to work.
>
> This is a lot like the confusion between Open Source and free beer.
> When people ask me if I'm going to "open source" something what
> they're really asking is when am I going to make it free so that they
> can give it to all of their clients.  Frankly my response is similar
> to the MV vendors.  Screw that.
>
> When we can somehow confirm that more open (dare I say liberal?)
> policies for source and licenses won't be abused, I'm sure we'll see
> better prices and more such open policies.  Until then all we're
> seeing is abuse at the first opportunity, even in the form of
> retribution.
>
> T
>
>

I hasten to add, this was a company I used to work for, and to whom i
explained constantly why they did not get good support from IBM, but
who chose to continue even now, with large airline and travel co
booking systems running off minimum licences. I am sure IBM would love
to go into to say american, or BA and do a deal with them, but not if
we are only talking a handfull of licences....  I agree it is not
healthy for the MV marketplace.

0
Symeon
1/22/2007 1:26:14 PM
Now, now, you know that's not true....

I'm sure that most would actually SELL it to their clients (after getting it
for free).

This attitude is likely due to the demographics of the Pick marketplace.

hth
Colin Alfke
Calgary Canada

"Tony Gravagno"  wrote
>
> This is a lot like the confusion between Open Source and free beer.
> When people ask me if I'm going to "open source" something what
> they're really asking is when am I going to make it free so that they
> can give it to all of their clients.  Frankly my response is similar
> to the MV vendors.  Screw that.


0
Colin
1/23/2007 12:22:40 AM
Rob Bergman wrote:
> Healthpac Computer Systems has been with Pick Systems / Raining Data for 15
> years, but we can no longer afford the user licensing fees at large
> installations.

Rob,

As people are offering their own solutions, I don't feel guilty at
offering ours ;-). Why don't you take a look at Cache'? We have other
pricing models than just a single per user model, and the basic policy
is to work with the customers to establish a fair pricing model for
their applications. Also, we have lots of sites with 400 users or more,
so you know it will work and perform. In fact, if performance is at all
a driver, then you should look at Cache'. We also have lots of syprt
and techincal backup for you.

Jim

0
Jim
1/23/2007 4:30:59 PM
Thanks Martin,
I got it - if I want to sell the fruits of my labor, I'll need a commercial 
license version of OpenQM; If I don't, then the "free" version works just 
fine.

Now - I was wondering - do you have some sort of arrangement with RD (like 
all of the other "Pick"-like vendors), or are those days of Sir Richard and 
Zukin coming after Prime, Universe, and others past?
Curious,
Tom

"Martin Phillips" <MartinPhillips@ladybridge.com> wrote in message 
news:1169456046.036614.186950@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Let's try to bring this to a close. We are beginning to go around in
> circles....
>
> Mike Ryder summed it all up perfect when he wrote:
>> 1. In order to run my programs I need QM - my programs, application,
>> whatever are not independent.
>> 2. If I sell my programs then my customer needs a commercial QM licence
>> 3. If I am giving away the product and the source, I can use the GPL
>> licence and thus the GPL licence QM
>
> There are two separate rules that affect what you can do:
>
> 1. The GPL sets out how the open source can be used and what you must
> do if you wish to distribute an application. The various postings that
> reference the difference between the GPL and LGPL are relevant to this.
> In our view, the open source is for the expert user who needs to modify
> the core components of QM to do something that we never envisaged.
>
> As one contributor observed, there is frequent confusion between "open
> source" and "free". The GPL explicitly draws this distinction and makes
> it clear that we are entitled to charge for the open source if we wish
> (something that has crossed our minds).
>
> 2. Our own software licence strictly bans moving applications between
> the open source and the commercial product. You are free to develop on
> the open source but must obtain a commercial licence before you
> distribute the application to users of the commercial product. A single
> user licence will do.
>
> Related to this, is a very important point that I made in a response
> yesterday. We give absolutely no guarantee about compatibility between
> the two versions of QM. Indeed, there are developments in the pipeline
> that will not appear in the open source and which may end up making the
> two incompatible at the compiled object code level even though they
> originate from a single source stream.
>
>
> One posting in this thread talked about the need for open source to
> allow self-fixing of bugs. We have received several comments about the
> speed of our response to support calls. It is highly likely that we
> could have a fix for a bug out before an open source user has even
> found where to look. The open source should not be looked on as a way
> to do your own maintenance.
>
>
> Finally, to put Tom Phillips' mind to rest, we have no interest in
> trying to grab copies of application developers' source code or
> interfere in any other way with their business. Commercial QM users
> purchase a licence in exactly the same way as from other vendors and
> then go about their business as usual. QM is sufficiently reliable that
> we never hear from most clients again unless we ask how they are
> getting on. And, remember that QM has no mandatory maintenance
> contracts so you are not paying for a support service that you
> hopefully never need.
>
>
> End of subject? Hopefully... Until this time next year, anyway.
>
>
> Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems
> 


0
Tom
1/24/2007 12:32:08 AM
This is not exactly true: the GCC compiler is GPL, some of the
libraries are LGPL.  Running your program through the GCC does not make
it GPL - linking your program to GPL'ed libraries (either static or
dynamic) makes it GPL.  This has been covered many times by the FSF.
The Apple compiler is GPL'ed, the COCOA and other libraries used by the
Apple compiler are not.

The one difference I see between OpenQM and most SQL client/server
databases is that it is really an interpreter -- your programs are
actually running IN OpenQM -- in most SQL databases your applications
are only sending SQL requests TO a database to be processed.  So if you
have a client hosted application that only sends requests to OpenQM -
then you should be fine using the GPL'ed version - If you have code
that is BASIC programs stored, compiled and run under QM - then you are
in effect 'linking' to the GPL'ed parts of OpenQM and therefore your
app must be GPL'ed as well.

The GPL code very specificly excludes aggregation:  you can ship GPL'ed
and non-GPL'ed programs together on the same CD (as many of the
commercial Linux distributions do).  The GPL'ed parts use GPL'ed
libraries, the non-GPL'ed parts use commercial libraries.  It is only
when you use the GPL'ed compiler to link to GPL'ed libraries that your
program becomes GPL'ed.  You can distribute a non-gpled application
with a GPL'ed Linux distribution as long as you have only linked your
application with LGPL'ed code.

---

The easiest rule, I believe , is that if you want to make money off of
SELLING your product -- then you should be open to Martin making money
off of OpenQM.  If you want to make money off of SUPPORTING your
product, then distribute as GPL.

The fact is that many companies make money off of distributing and
supporting open source code.  The real money is in custom programming
and support anyway.  And if you are distributing a complex product,
most likely you, as the original author of the work will have more paid
customization and support work than you can handle if your code is
widely distributed.

AND, there is no obligation to DOCUMENT your open source code.  You can
always sell the documentation or keep all the programming documentation
to yourself.

On Jan 20, 6:35 pm, "me" <n...@spamplease.com> wrote:
> Hi Henry-
>
> You appear to be confusing the GPL with the LGPL.  If the GCC compiler and
> libraries was GPL then every program compiled with them would be required to
> be GPL by definition.  But as that compiler and libraries are released under
> the LGPL there is no such requirement.  The difference here is that Martin
> has released OpenQM under the GPL not the LGPL which makes every program
> compiled under it a derivitive work.
>
> -Bob
>
> <hbkeult...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169127252.035794.64760@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Dale wrote:
> >> They also have an open source version but be very wary of the GPL
> >> agreement.  Failure to comply could result in the requirement of your
> >> applications needing to be open source as well.
>
> > While I am not a lawyer and presumably Dale is not either, the tie-in
> > between applications and OpenQM that could lead to the requirement for
> > having to Open Source applications is fictitious.
>
> > The basic requirement is, for example, if this post's EMR provider
> > decides to use OpenQM and makes modifications and/or additions to
> > OpenQM that it then provides to its customers, for free or at a price,
> > it has to post those modifications and/or additions to the OpenQM list.
>
> > If Henry makes modifications and/or additions to OpenQM and uses those
> > internally only, he has no requirement under the GPL to share that
> > code.  .
>
> > The GPL is treacherous only because there are too many lawyers who
> > absolutely don't understand the concept of Open Source and hence don't
> > understand the contractual obligations of the GPL.
>
> > Even Microsoft uses some GPL code and I have not seen any evidence of
> > Wall Street dumping Microsoft stock because of the fear that its
> > biggest money maker, it's Microsoft Office suite of applications,  will
> > be drawn in under the GPL.
>
> > I go through the Free Software Foundationhttp://www.fsf.orgto get my
> > advise.  I strongly suggest that anyone who has questions about the GPL
> > do likewise and also use their *state* bar association to find a lawyer
> > who is competent in giving GPL advise.  By making such a specific
> > *written* request you give yourself a way to sue for incompetence if a
> > lawyer mishandles your requirement, especially by advising against the
> > GPL when there is no sound legal reason to do so and as a consequence
> > your business is damaged because business opportunities are missed.
>
> > Henry Keultjes
> > Database Scientifics Projecthttp://www.ncolug.org/ppc.htm
> > Mansfield Ohio USA
> > Direct 419-525-1111

0
dmontaine
1/25/2007 2:29:23 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Pick a PICK
Hi, I last programmed in PICK on an Ultimate mini back in the late 80's and early 90's. I am thinking of brushing up on my PICK skills and am wondering: 1) If you think there is any life left in PICK: are there any sales of PICK-based systems to *new* client companies these days, or is it all legacy support? 2) What PICK vendor offering you personally recommend (support, financial health of vendor) Thanks. #1: I know that there are software vendors with multivalue-based applications who are actively selling their apps to new end users. #2: I'm biased, but I would definitely have to recommend Intersystem's Cach=E9 database. It's an actively developed and enhanced modern product from a healthy company that gives you many more features out of the box than any other vender's offering. On Sep 7, 9:55=A0am, Hlafordlaes <hlafordl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I last programmed in PICK on an Ultimate mini back in the late 80's > and early 90's. I am thinking of brushing up on my PICK skills and am > wondering: > > 1) If you think there is any life left in PICK: are there any sales of > PICK-based systems to *new* client companies these days, or is it all > legacy support? > 2) What PICK vendor offering you personally recommend (support, > financial health of vendor) > > Thanks. On Sep 7, 10:47=A0am, edclark <edcl...@aol.com> wrote: > I'm biased, but I ...

DataBase DataBase DataBase DataBase
DataBase DataBase DataBase DataBase Porfessional Programmable Database Ver. 2.0 2.1 Million Record Capacity. Search Rate: 2000/Records/Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Email). Easy Paypal Online Ordering. See Site Below. http://www.vehiclerepair.org/dbPro/dbpro.html Scott: #DataBase...

DataBase DataBase DataBase DataBase
DataBase DataBase DataBase DataBase Porfessional Programmable Database Ver. 2.0 2.1 Million Record Capacity. Search Rate: 2000/Records/Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Email). Easy Paypal Online Ordering. See Site Below. http://www.vehiclerepair.org/dbPro/dbpro.html ...

Picking always pick up circles
Hi, I'm writing a paint program that can draw different objects like lines, polygons, rectangles, circles. The problem is that whenever there is a circle on the scene, picking will always return that circle as being hit. The code for picking is : GLuint selectBuf[SIZE]; GLint hits; GLint viewport[4]; glGetIntegerv (GL_VIEWPORT, viewport); glSelectBuffer (SIZE, selectBuf); glRenderMode(GL_SELECT); glInitNames(); glPushName(0); glMatrixMode (GL_SELECT); glPushMatrix (); glLoadIdentity (); /* create 5x5 pixel picking region near cursor loc...

PICK to MSWord, or MSWord to PICK
Has anyone have any experience at converting PICK files (PEQS hold entries, et al) to a MSWord document, or vice-versa. And/or, use of MSWORD escape characters being incorporated in a PICK document, for font control, etc. Thanks, in advance, for your assistance. JJCSR wrote: > Has anyone have any experience at converting PICK files (PEQS hold > entries, et al) to a MSWord document, or vice-versa. And/or, use of > MSWORD escape characters being incorporated in a PICK document, for > font control, etc. > > Thanks, in advance, for your assistance. > If I understand it correctly (going out on thin ice, that) a .DOC document is more like a binary picture than a text document the way you and I might think of it. Art Hi Jim - I have extensive experience integrating Word, Excel, and Outlook with MV environments. The following link is to a product that is no longer offered, but it gives you an idea of what's possible: removethisNebula-RnD.com/products/doc.htm You don't want to put escape codes into your data, but you certainly can pull data fields into Word templates or build Word docs from scratch. My code creates a new Word document, pulls in text, and formats it using the Document Object Model in Word. These days if I were to re-write NebulaDoc I would probably do it using XML rather that integrating directly into the Word DOM. I just did this with Excel, so now I can use simple calls from BASIC to crea...

$1 picked up; $2 not picked up
OS: solaris; shell: ksh my UNIX shell script contains I have the following sequence of isql commands isql -S ${DBServer} -D murex2000_${DBName} -P ${DBPasswd} -U ${DBLogin} -s, << EO declare @desk varchar(8), @purge_date char(8), @row1 int, @row2 int set nocount on select @purge_date=convert(char(8),dateadd(dd,-${2},getdate()),112) select @row1=count(*) from A_DBF where (M__ALIAS_='$1') and M__DATE_<=@purge_date and (M_INSTR1='$4') print "table A_DBF: %1! rows. table B_DBF: %2! rows. ", @row1, @row2 go EOF } note: @desk = DESKA; @purge_date: today'...

Pick
Pick is dead - move on people. Most vars are stuck in the 80s mindset of they know best, products are not developed and its cumbersome to interface into other software packages. Leave whilst you still have chance. "Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer" One who hides his face must have a reason to be ashamed of his face. BobJ <nobody@cypherpunks.to> wrote in message news:20050403121553.BAE341704A@mail.cypherpunks.to... > Pick is dead - move on people. Most vars are stuck in the 80s mindset of > they know best, products are not developed and its...

I *JUST* would like to output the data in a PICK (UniVerse) database to a comma delimited file!
OK, Small problem. Although it seems extremely difficult in PICK/UniVerse. I just need some basic code or some recall statements (LIST?) to output the data in comma delimited format. That is it! The output could also be in any format such that I can read it into MySQL or Excell (again the comma delimted is fine!) I am very very new to Pick/Universe databases. HELP! D. Ulm go to ftp.cedarville.edu for a complete download package csv,tab,xml,etc types of formats GEEK^& wrote: > OK, > > Small problem. Although it seems extremely difficult in PICK/UniVer...

Excel interface for Pick database
I own a business where our main accounting software is a Pick based system. The author of our software has reached his limits as far as integrating newer technologies. We would like to look into modifying the system to allow for more flexibility including web interfaces for client access, an Excel interface for many of our daily entry tasks etc. We are located in Maryland and the software author reports that he is willing to help make this happen if someone is interested and capable. Please respond if interested. Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com "Brian" wrote: >I own a business where our main accounting software is a Pick based system. The author of our software has reached his limits as far as integrating newer technologies. We would like to look into modifying the system to allow for more flexibility including web interfaces for client access, an Excel interface for many of our daily entry tasks etc. We are located in Maryland and the software author reports that he is willing to help make this happen if someone is interested and capable. Please respond if interested. Brian, what you describe is exactly the sort of work that's done here at Nebula R&D. Web GUI with various tools (now a lot more nif...

How to pick out random samples from a database?
Dear Sir or Madam, I would like to pick out 100 tuples ranging from 200 tuples in the database at random. It means I've 200 samples in the data base, and I want to pick out 100 random samples from the 200 samples in the database. Therefore, how can I carry it out? Thanks Try, >> help randperm -EXAMPLE- >> a=1:20; % Some "data" >> ind=randperm(length(a)); % Random permutation of indices >> b=a(ind(1:10)) % Random elements from a Dear Daniel, Thank you so much. Have a nice weekend Hero daniel ennis wrote: > > > Try, > >>> help...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap
Database Database Database Database Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Email). http://w...

Custom Reports by Form input (user picks report options on Form and gets report showing options picked)
I can't quite grasp the concept of creating custom reports depending upon what options a user picks on a Form. For example, the user clicks on a "Print Reports" button and a Form pops up. On the Form the user can choose to get a report that shows the Box Numbers that are at Warehouse A, Warehouse B or Warehouse C. and then click on the Print Preview button and get a report showing only the Box Numbers in whichever warehouse was selected. My project is 99% done but I just can't get this last report bit. I am using Access 2002 but the database (for some reason) says that it...

a database, is a database, is a err database
How many times can we see the same request from someone who wants to access data from a 'pick' database through what has come to be 'standard' practices (odbc, oledb) and still get the same old sloppy ' buy this proprietary utility (and above all, my services)' answer. I think most of these pick flavors should have some sort of layer (by now!) to handle this; If someone needs to do this, the service is really 'education' i.e to show them how. Lets cut the shit now and stop with this tired and silly BS and sad marketing schlock. Regards, -Jim ...

What is Pick?
Hi folks, not a troll... Just trying to find out what Pick is; I've heard it mentioned in conjuntion with a commerical Omnis application I manage and am trying to find out more. Is there a FAQ somewhere? I couldn't find one on this group's active messages on my news server. My own background is Jet (Access) and Oracle. TIA for any guidance. -- Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/ ^o< /#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake /^^ "Want some?" - Ditto Steve Lancour wrote: > > Try http://www.jes.com/cdp/index.html...

opengl picking vs. computational geometry picking
Hello! I would like to hear what this news group has to say about picking using the opengl API versus picking outside of opengl using computational geometry. When I say picking with opengl I mean rendering named objects to a small viewport in selection mode and then see what named obejcts got rendered. I haven't tried this myself, but if I'm not mistaken this is the way that is done. When I say picking using computational geometry I mean something like this: 1. Transform viewport coordinates into a ray extending from the near plane into the scene 2. Perform intersection tests with this ray and all pickable objects, or approximations of all pickable objects. To me it seems that the first method is potentialy wasteful and the second one gives me a more fine grained control of what is actually happening. What do you people think? Is there any strong arguments for using one instead of the other? Regards, Mattias "Mattias Br�ndstr�m" <thebrasse@brasse.org> wrote in message news:4108b985$0$174$cc7c7865@news.luth.se... > Hello! > > I would like to hear what this news group has to say about picking using > the opengl API versus picking outside of opengl using computational > geometry. > > When I say picking with opengl I mean rendering named objects to a small > viewport in selection mode and then see what named obejcts got rendered. > I haven't tried this myself, but if I'm not mistaken this is the way > th...

Pick Databases
Hi all! I just came across a helpful site where you can sign up for a free monthly newsletter at http://www.ellsys.com/helpful_hints.htm and/or free software at http://www.ellsys.com/free_software.htm. This guy is in the consulting business and has over 21 years experience with PICK! He helped me immensely with a problem I had with a nagging F: correlative. Just thought I would share this with you.... Patti Hi there all you football lover's. I just came across this great club called Manchester United. They are great to watch and they really helped me tremendo...

ADP PICK database connect to SQL
Hi. I am looking for information on how to connect to an ADP/PIC database with SQL. I am a webdeveloper recently hired by an aut dealer. I am quite new to the pick world, and for that matter, almos all database programming outside of using PHP with mysql All of the dealerships data is stored in a pick database. I am charge with making a website that is able to display that data online. One possible route has been exporting the pick data to csv files an putting them on the linux side and then grabbing them from there an importing them into sql. this seems to be overly complicated h...

How to do a Pick/DataBASIC http server service?
I am wondering how many ways there are to write a Pick/DataBASIC service that takes in a parameter from a URL and returns (via http) a result. Let's say that there is JavaScript in a browser that is doing an XMLHttpRequest (or ActiveX), aka AJAX, request to a URL such as www.mydomain.com/myservice.whatever?this=that What all is behind this URL? It might be enlightening (to me at least) to inventory the ways to accomplish this feat. 1. PHP + OpenQM client/server library + OpenQM In a non-transaction processing environment (in fact doing only read-only right now), I have do...

Database Database Database Database Software Cheap #2
Database Database Database Database Software Cheap Great Datase Software See Website Below. Ultra Easy to Learn (Typically 30 Seconds) Professional Programmable Database Ver. 2.3 2.1 Million Record Capacity, (New cond). Search Rate: 2000 / Records / Second. DataBase Type: Random Access. Can Create Unlimited Databases. Programmable fields for any Application. Has Six Seperate Field Sets All Programmable. Build Time One Second, (Auto Creates DB). Setup Time: Instantly, Just Enter DB Name. Ultra Cheap Price, Special $20, Paypal Accepted. Application Mailed Instantly (file Attached Em...

Web resources about - Looking for PICK or PICK-Like database with no charge for unlimited users - comp.databases.pick

Last thing Mitt Romney needs is a boring veep pick like Rob Portman
WASHINGTON — Could the ongoing waiting game for Mitt Romney’s veep choice mean that the GOP candidate is rethinking his go-with-the-safe-guy ...

Little Dog Plays Dead When a Human He Doesn’t Like Picks Him Up
An adorable Chihuahua goes completely stiff and plays dead whenever a man named Daniel picks him up . According to his human Jennie Kay Blair ...

Obama camp: ‘Hail Mary’ Ryan pick like Palin and Quayle
President Barack Obama's re-election campaign argued Thursday that Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate amounted to a "Hail ...

Resources last updated: 2/21/2016 6:57:09 PM