Thread: Announce: GPL Framework centered on Postgres
Hello folks, My company has developed an application development framework that targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer. We are inviting any early adopters who may wish to experiment to download and install the code. You may contact me off-list with any support or other questions. Licensing is GPL. The framework has already been used to deploy one largish (270+ tables) public site. There is one smaller public site and one business application under development now. Because we have used it successfully, we consider it late beta for our own use. However, we believe anybody else using it now would likely find foibles that we are consciously or unconsciously avoiding, so that it might be properly termed 'pre-alpha' for other users. This is why we stress we are seeking 'early adopters'. If you like the features but don't want to experiment, you may wish to wait. This is also why we are offering support at this stage to the GPL project. The overall framework is extremely heavy on automation of all kinds. It is also heavy on the elimination of as much code as possible. The main project site is here: http://docs.secdat.com
Attachment
Kenneth Downs wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> My company has developed an application development framework that
> targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer.
>
> We are inviting any early adopters who may wish to experiment to
> download and install the code. You may contact me off-list with any
> support or other questions.
>
> Licensing is GPL.
Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Kenneth Downs wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> My company has developed an application development framework that >> targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer. >> >> We are inviting any early adopters who may wish to experiment to >> download and install the code. You may contact me off-list with any >> support or other questions. >> >> Licensing is GPL. > > > Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. As is customary, GPL downloaders get no support, but folks who want a closer relationship with us can pursue any avenue that is reasonable for both of us. We can do complete development, as we do for our current customers who know little and care less about the tools we use, or training, consulting and so forth. For corporate customers, it does not matter much whether you call it a license or something else, some expenditures are made to support the customer's effort and the customer is asked to provide the funds for that. Call it consulting fees, call it licensing, call it training or support, it is all the same thing. We also anticipate a closed commercial license for the more stable project, where the GPL project is the wide-open bleeding edge version, but that is down the road and a full model will have to await further developments.
Attachment
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:02:36PM -0400, Kenneth Downs wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >Kenneth Downs wrote: > > > >>Hello folks, > >> > >>My company has developed an application development framework that > >>targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer. > >> > >>We are inviting any early adopters who may wish to experiment to > >>download and install the code. You may contact me off-list with any > >>support or other questions. > >> > >>Licensing is GPL. > > > >Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? > > GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. If that's your goal, consider the BSDL or similar. There are lots of outfits where people are forbidden flat-out to get GPL code. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote!
>> Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses?
>
> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible.
LGPL?
My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source
application if it is GPL.
That may be your intent (which I actually don't have a business problem
with), I was just curious as to your decision.
> As is customary, GPL downloaders get no support, but folks who want a
> closer relationship with us can pursue any avenue that is reasonable for
> both of us. We can do complete development, as we do for our current
> customers who know little and care less about the tools we use, or
> training, consulting and so forth.
Sure.
> For corporate customers, it does not matter much whether you call it a
> license or something else, some expenditures are made to support the
> customer's effort and the customer is asked to provide the funds for
> that. Call it consulting fees, call it licensing, call it training or
> support, it is all the same thing.
O.k. so you are going to charge a corporate customer to allow them to
get their code their own?
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >>> Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? >> >> >> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. > > > LGPL? > > My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source > application if it is GPL. > > That may be your intent (which I actually don't have a business > problem with), I was just curious as to your decision. If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you cannot do so. If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda, you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself. However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You never modify a file, and your files and mine are actually in separate directories. I greatly appreciate your asking the question though because I'd like to make sure that people feel safe with the project. My goal is to provide the freedoms typically associated with the "plain old GPL", and certainly not to restrict the creation of closed apps. I just don't want anybody closing *my* app. >> For corporate customers, it does not matter much whether you call it >> a license or something else, some expenditures are made to support >> the customer's effort and the customer is asked to provide the funds >> for that. Call it consulting fees, call it licensing, call it >> training or support, it is all the same thing. > > > O.k. so you are going to charge a corporate customer to allow them to > get their code their own? > Only if they want to talk to me :) It is GPL, so anybody can download it and use it, person, gov, NGO, corp. There is a documentation site that IMHO is pretty nice and getting better every day. But if you want my time, that's for sale.
Attachment
Kenneth Downs <ken@secdat.com> writes: > If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will > definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you > cannot do so. > If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda, > you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself. > However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because > your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. This may well be what a sane person would think after perusing the license text, but you need to be aware that the FSF takes a much more expansive reading of that text. AFAIK those details haven't been tested yet in any court of law --- but until a reading is settled by court precedents, people tend to look to the FSF's interpretation. And the FSF is on record as saying that if code A depends on code B then B's GPL license infects A, even for pretty weak values of "depends". You should carefully read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, which contains statements such as If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. I don't have anything against the GPL's goals, but those goals are very clearly that the entire software universe should be GPL code. If that's not what you have in mind, then you should think twice about licensing a software component (as opposed to a standalone product that isn't meant to have other code depending on it) under GPL. regards, tom lane
Kenneth Downs wrote: >>> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. >> >> LGPL? >> >> My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source >> application if it is GPL. >> >> That may be your intent (which I actually don't have a business >> problem with), I was just curious as to your decision. > > If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will > definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you > cannot do so. > > If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda, > you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself. > However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because > your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You never modify a > file, and your files and mine are actually in separate directories. > > I greatly appreciate your asking the question though because I'd like to > make sure that people feel safe with the project. My goal is to provide > the freedoms typically associated with the "plain old GPL", and > certainly not to restrict the creation of closed apps. I just don't > want anybody closing *my* app. Then it sounds like LGPL is exactly what you want. That forbids people closing your code, but allows linking of it to closed apps. Cf Tom's comments, it's quite difficult for anyone to release code that depends on GPL'd code without incurring the terms of the GPL for their code (and that is clearly the way the FSF want it to be). But as Joshua was implying, a common business model is to release some code under GPL, which means it can be used only for GPL'd apps, and then also be willing to sell other sorts of licences for it to be used with commercial apps. If that's the sort of business model you have in mind, then GPL is probably what you want. Tim -- ----------------------------------------------- Tim Allen tim@proximity.com.au Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/
Kenneth Downs wrote: > > My company has developed an application development framework that > targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer. > Is this product somehow related to AndroMDA (which is usually pronounced 'Andromeda')? http://www.andromda.org/ Greetings, Anastasios
Tim Allen wrote: > Kenneth Downs wrote: >>>> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. >>> >>> LGPL? >>> >>> My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source >>> application if it is GPL. >>> >>> That may be your intent (which I actually don't have a business >>> problem with), I was just curious as to your decision. >> >> If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will >> definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced >> you cannot do so. >> >> If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon >> Andromeda, you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda >> itself. However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict >> sense because your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You >> never modify a file, and your files and mine are actually in separate >> directories. >> >> I greatly appreciate your asking the question though because I'd like >> to make sure that people feel safe with the project. My goal is to >> provide the freedoms typically associated with the "plain old GPL", >> and certainly not to restrict the creation of closed apps. I just >> don't want anybody closing *my* app. > > Then it sounds like LGPL is exactly what you want. That forbids people > closing your code, but allows linking of it to closed apps. Cf Tom's > comments, it's quite difficult for anyone to release code that depends > on GPL'd code without incurring the terms of the GPL for their code (and > that is clearly the way the FSF want it to be). > > But as Joshua was implying, a common business model is to release some > code under GPL, which means it can be used only for GPL'd apps, and then > also be willing to sell other sorts of licences for it to be used with > commercial apps. If that's the sort of business model you have in mind, > then GPL is probably what you want. > We've been through similar discussions recently with our web application server, Whitebeam (http://www.whitebeam.org). We'd originally released this under a variant of the Mozilla licence - which I think is not unlike GPL. We started down that route because we make use of Mozillas JavaScript engine (SpiderMonkey). We did get a number of comments though, and we never managed to get our licence adopted by the OSS (quite rightly so!) The outcome of the discussion was to release the project under a BSD license. A good deal of the discussion centred around the fact that we make heavy use of Postgres and so we'd be a much more natural choice of development environment if we had a similar licence. It helped that the discussions took place during the uncertaintly around mySQL licensing coupled with Oracles buyout of the innodb company. The clincher was that Postgres+Whitebeam+Apache (1.3.29 before they changed their licence) provided a complete BSD based web development environment. The only external dependancy being SpiderMonkey which we link to under the LGPL. My suggestion would be: a) if you want to keep the option of selling/licencing your code for commercial gain, do something like mySQL and release under GPL with lots of warnings and offer people a 'commercial' licence; b) if you want to see your project used in the widest possible audience go with BSD. The BSD license does allow others to create a closed-source project from your code - but my view is that isn't too important. You'd be the natural port of call if they wanted consultancy on how to do that. Pete -- http://www.whitebeam.org http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk ----------
Tom Lane wrote:
Tom, thanks much. That points me pretty firmly towards LGPL. I will reflect on this and likely make a change in the coming weeks.Kenneth Downs <ken@secdat.com> writes:If it turns out that nobody can release a closed source app, I will definitely reconsider and look again at LGPL, but I am not convinced you cannot do so.If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda, you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself. However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense.This may well be what a sane person would think after perusing the license text, but you need to be aware that the FSF takes a much more expansive reading of that text. AFAIK those details haven't been tested yet in any court of law --- but until a reading is settled by court precedents, people tend to look to the FSF's interpretation. And the FSF is on record as saying that if code A depends on code B then B's GPL license infects A, even for pretty weak values of "depends". You should carefully read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html, which contains statements such as If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. I don't have anything against the GPL's goals, but those goals are very clearly that the entire software universe should be GPL code. If that's not what you have in mind, then you should think twice about licensing a software component (as opposed to a standalone product that isn't meant to have other code depending on it) under GPL. regards, tom lane
Attachment
Anastasios Hatzis wrote: > Kenneth Downs wrote: > >> >> My company has developed an application development framework that >> targets PostgreSQL as its back-end, with PHP in the web layer. >> > Is this product somehow related to AndroMDA (which is usually > pronounced 'Andromeda')? > > http://www.andromda.org/ Nope, separate projects. Theirs is java, we are php. Theirs is windows, we are linux. They don't mention a database, I'm sure they're using something, we target Postgres (though our methodology is platform-neutral). They look like a code generator, while ours uses libraries + data dictionary on web server layer, and only generates code on the db server. Finally, we are "radically table oriented", focusing entirely on automating software development based on a detailed database specification which includes derived values and security. They use UML, while we have a CSS-like way of specifying tables as in: table customers { module: ar; description: customers; column customer { primary_key: Y; uisearch: Y; } .... more columns and stuff .... }
Attachment
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:33:56AM +0100, Peter Wilson wrote: > The BSD license does allow others to create a closed-source project from > your code - but my view is that isn't too important. You'd be the natural > port of call if they wanted consultancy on how to do that. I'd argue that if you can't compete against that then you have much bigger problems, especially since the OSS world tends to take a pretty dim view on 'hostile takeovers' of OSS code. In any case, I believe there's other licenses that protect against someone closing your code. I *thought* the MPL was one, but maybe not. Perhaps Apache's license does. In any case I'd be very careful with any license that comes out of FSF, since it's pretty clear what their views on commercial software are... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
* Kenneth Downs: > If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon > Andromeda, you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda > itself. However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict > sense because your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You > never modify a file, and your files and mine are actually in separate > directories. Many proprietary software vendors think that if you program to an interface which has a sole implementation, your code becomes a derived work of that implementation. If you sell different licenses for run-time and development environments, such an attitude towards copyright law seems inevitable. It's a bit unfortunate that the FSF promotes this interpretation, although it's necessary for creating an effective copyleft license for libraries and other reusable components.
* Joshua D. Drake: >>> Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? >> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. > > LGPL? > > My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source > application if it is GPL. Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-) Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the GPL does not come into play because you do not actually distribute the software. You just run it on your servers.
Hi, Florian Weimer wrote: > Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-) > > Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive > than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention > the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the > GPL does not come into play because you do not actually distribute the > software. You just run it on your servers. So you're supposing that no one would ever build a distributable (free or commercial) application on your own framework, because if they do they are forced to release the whole project under GPL. Best regards -- Matteo Beccati http://phpadsnew.com http://phppgads.com
Florian Weimer wrote:
Which has me thinking of the idea of requiring a copyright notice in the HTML files sent to the browser, or some type of "powered by" notice. I will add that to the list of ponderables along with LGPL.
LOL. I was thinking something of the same thing. But as you point out...* Joshua D. Drake:Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses?GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible.LGPL? My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source application if it is GPL.Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-)
The paradox is that web is a more closed environment. The user need never download and install the source.Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention the software in the end user documentation.
Which has me thinking of the idea of requiring a copyright notice in the HTML files sent to the browser, or some type of "powered by" notice. I will add that to the list of ponderables along with LGPL.
Attachment
Florian Weimer wrote:
The last sentence I don't understand at all, can you elaborate?
I am not understanding you. By sole implementation do you mean sole license, or single codebase, or cant-run-without-the-library?* Kenneth Downs:If you seek to provide a closed source app that is built upon Andromeda, you are required to provide the source code to Andromeda itself. However, your app is not a derivative work in the strict sense because your code is not mixed in with mine in any sense. You never modify a file, and your files and mine are actually in separate directories.Many proprietary software vendors think that if you program to an interface which has a sole implementation, your code becomes a derived work of that implementation. If you sell different licenses for run-time and development environments, such an attitude towards copyright law seems inevitable.
The last sentence I don't understand at all, can you elaborate?
Attachment
* Kenneth Downs: >>Many proprietary software vendors think that if you program to an >>interface which has a sole implementation, your code becomes a derived >>work of that implementation. If you sell different licenses for >>run-time and development environments, such an attitude towards >>copyright law seems inevitable. > I am not understanding you. By sole implementation do you mean sole > license, or single codebase, or cant-run-without-the-library? Sole implementation, IOW, you cannot replace the implementation with something else from a different vendor. > The last sentence I don't understand at all, can you elaborate? Suppose that I've implemented a COM (or CORBA) object. I sell an SDK (with documentation, IDL files and things like that) for $3,000. For each application which redistributes the object, I charge you $150 (because you aren't eligible for volume discounts). Now the IDL files can be reverse-engineered from the object in straightforward manner. So you go out, buy some software that includes the object (maybe even one of my demo versions), and use that for development. Instead of paying me royalties, you instruct your customers to obtain the other software to get the object. This isn't too far-fetched, I've seen things like that many moons ago. > Which has me thinking of the idea of requiring a copyright notice in > the HTML files sent to the browser, or some type of "powered by" > notice. I will add that to the list of ponderables along with LGPL. This can be quite obnoxious if the application is ever used with a non-browser front end. It's also quite easy to remove the copyright statement in a reverse proxy, without changing the application itself.
* Matteo Beccati: > Hi, > > Florian Weimer wrote: >> Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-) >> Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive >> than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention >> the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the >> GPL does not come into play because you do not actually distribute the >> software. You just run it on your servers. > > So you're supposing that no one would ever build a distributable (free > or commercial) application on your own framework, because if they do > they are forced to release the whole project under GPL. If the project is implemented in some kind of scripting language (which does not offer persistent compilations, or some kind of compilation which is easily reversed), the GPL vs BSD distinction is not very important. If you are technically forced to ship the program as source code, a license that allows you to distribute binaries without source code does not offer much more freedom than one which forces you to distribute the source code if you distribute (non-existent) binaries.
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:25:09AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joshua D. Drake: > > >>> Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? > >> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. > > > > LGPL? > > > > My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source > > application if it is GPL. > > Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-) > > Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive > than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention > the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the The BSD license requires no such thing. It only requires that you maintain the notice in the code. I challenge you to find a less restrictive license. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:25:09AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Joshua D. Drake:
>>
>>>>> Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses?
>>>> GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible.
>>> LGPL?
>>>
>>> My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source
>>> application if it is GPL.
>> Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-)
>>
>> Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive
>> than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention
>> the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the
>
> The BSD license requires no such thing. It only requires that you
> maintain the notice in the code. I challenge you to find a less
> restrictive license. :)
public domain ;)
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:07:50PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 07:25:09AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>* Joshua D. Drake: > >> > >>>>>Sounds great! But why GPL? Are you looking to sell licenses? > >>>>GPL is to spread it as far and wide as possible as fast as possible. > >>>LGPL? > >>> > >>>My concern would be, I can't use this toolkit for a closed source > >>>application if it is GPL. > >>Closed source? It's a PHP framework. 8-) > >> > >>Anyway, for a web application, the GPL is usually *less* restrictive > >>than various BSD license variants because you do not need to mention > >>the software in the end user documentation. The viral aspect of the > > > >The BSD license requires no such thing. It only requires that you > >maintain the notice in the code. I challenge you to find a less > >restrictive license. :) > > public domain ;) Isn't a license, really. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461