Our app (VB.NET) needs to ship with a datastore that meets these
requirements:

(a) single-user
(b) small footprint
(c) xcopy-install
(d) ADO.NET compatible
(e) royalty-free

Access MDB files don't meet requirements (b) and (c). We've looked at
Codebase. It would do. But is there anyhing like a "Tiny Footprint PICK" out
there? Something that that exists as a DLL or a couple of DLLs? A
nested-relational solution would actually work well for us.

Regards
Timo

I think the maverick implementation of pick is based on java. That has
a fairly small footprint.

Buy yourself a "real" copy of Revelation, and you can deploy 'free'
single user runtimes - this is probably your best option in light of
all of your requirements.

If you weren't Win based, QM may have been an option, but like MaVerick
has an infectious GPL association that could yield unfortunate results
with a 'commercial' application

Apart from these, I'm not aware of any 'legit' free options - of course
if your app is a "teaser" to get people to buy a real/bigger database,
then you might talk directly to one of the DB vendors, but if this is
only going to be lots of single users, forget it :-(

Ross:

Never have I seen anything you posted that I had a real argument with,
that is until now.

First of all, QM has no GPL association at all, only OpenQM does.
Second, calling GPL infectious makes you sound like Bill Gates and
Steve Ballmer.

The basic tenets of the GPL are; If you take code out of the kitty, you
are obligated to put what you added/modified back into the kitty. That
seems a very sensible requirement in light of a certain aspect of
humanity called greed.

IBM runs DB2, UniVerse and UniData on Linux and IBM puts code into the
Linux kitty almost daily. Do you believe that DB2, UniVerse and
UniData are GPL infected? Of course not because there is no such thing
as GPL infection. That is just a derogatory terminology used as FUD by
certain proprietary software companies who would rather fight their
competitors with FUD, rather than with a superior product.

There obviously is a place for both proprietary and Open Source
software, be that GPL'd or otherwise licensed. The tendency over time
will be that people will select an Open Source "platform" like Linux or
BSD or Darwin and OpenQM because developing those platforms
cooperatively, as opposed to going it alone, seems to make more sense.
I have always compared it to Amish barn building. Today we build a
barn for you, tomorrow we build a barn for me. I don't pay you, you
don't pay me. Helping each other makes more sense than each of us
hiring someone else to build a barn.

However, most business software *applications* have a much more limited
market appeal and buying a proprietary application may make more sense.
Still, the idea of Open Source has been firmly embedded in my mind
from the day I started investigating an IT solution for the chair
company, in 1978. Putting my faith and my money into a software
solution to which I did not have the source code was never an option to
me and more and more companies are coming to the realization that using
software to which they don't have the source code is not an option for
them.

If you have doubts about these interpretations, do not argue about them
with me. I get my interpretation from Eben Moglen and I suggest that
you ask him to refer you to a GPL expert in Australia because getting
an explanation as it affects US laws obviously cannot satisfy you in
Australia.

Henry Keultjes
hb+lastnameatearthlinkdotnet

Ross Ferris wrote:

Sometime around Sunday 17 Jul 2005 12:27, Ross Ferris spoke:

<sigh> If you run your application on MaVerick, it does not have any
affect on the license of your application. In fact, MaVerick uses the
LGPL license, which means that if you wanted to call the MaVerick java
routines from within your own Java application, you could, with no
worry about a 'GPL Infection'.

The only thing that the (L)GPL enforces is that if you want to
distribute MaVerick, you must make the source for MaVerick available
too.

--
Pete

"Pete" <spam (AT) phraxos (DOT) nildram.co.uk> wrote

Ah, but what effect does it have?

Chandru

Sometime around Sunday 17 Jul 2005 22:34, murthi spoke:

The same ;-)

--
Pete

Henry, as someone who disagrees with Ross almost all the time these
days (*snicker*) I need to at least side with him on this one.

His choice of words was awkward but OpenQM _is_ only Open for Linux
and I think the point Ross was making was precisely that its open
license does not apply to Windows, so it's not even a candidate for
the OP. In fact, while perfectly legitimate, the QM/OpenQM model has
restrictions in prejudice for Linux much like many other OSS packages
seem to favor Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I support the whole QM/OpenQM
thing and have no complaints about the model. But I also don't think
you shouldn't get all bent out of shape in defence of open source
against such a little comment.

In fact the only reason I'm piping up here is to point out that while
Ross probably didn't intend this, there _is_ a somewhat infectious
hypocritical trend in the OSS market against Microsoft, which sort of smacks
the concept of "open" right in the face. It reminds me of the saying
"all men are created equal but some are more equal than others".
(Reference also made about animals in Animal Farm and apes in Planet
of the Apes, but I digress from my digression). The trend is for many
open source developers to write code only for Linux because they say
Win32 is buggy or it just sucks. It's obvious in many of these cases
that the problems they cite are imagined or exaggerated to suit their
agenda, and that they don't even attempt to find solutions to their
issues in a manner comparable with their Linux debugging efforts -
they just choose to dismiss Win32.

I don't mind if one platform is truly superior to another and one wins
out over another. What I do object to is when people do something
wrong to further a cause that they feel is right - it just makes them
as bad as the evil they're trying to replace. There's way too much of
that going on in the world today, the least of which is when some
relational guy says Pick sucks or it's buggy - NOW who side are you
going to jump on?

Yup, way off topic again, sorry.
T

csigline (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

"I need to at least side with him on this one."

<GASP><SHOCK><HORROR>
What The?
</HORROR></SHOCK></GASP>

</visage_button_for_TG>

Tony:

First of all, I am not a great fan of monolithic kernels so I am not a
great Linux fan. Technically, from anything that is generally
available, I like Darwin best because of the Mach kernel but admire the
work of the folks who are doing Debian Hurd. Ultimately I am a true
believer in the Exo-Kernel concept and that the OS "wars" will
ultimately be a non-issue.

Obviously I am a GPL fan and to the best of my knowledge there is
nothing in the GPL that would prevent me from taking OpenQM and porting
it to Darwin or to any other BSD or Unix or to anything else, including
an Microsoft OS, as long as I post the code that I used to do that. OpenQM
does not get any less Open nor do any of the other OSs get any more
open from doing such a port.

If you disagree with that I want to take that question to Eben Moglen
and let him tell us his interpretation.

With the rest of your arguments I have no problem conceptually, neither
side is objective in stating its case.

You state "there _is_ a somewhat infectious hypocritical trend in the
OSS market against Microsoft, which sort of smacks the concept of "open" right
in the face." Most people's attitude toward Microsoft seems to be a
perspective issue; whether or not they develop for the Microsoft platform.
But, unlike people who sell Chevy's and hate Ford, this situation is
more analogues to Open tax supported roads and toll roads. Both have
their place but when the tollroad group shows a keen ability to snuggle
up to our politicians to convince them that public roads are
infectious, than I draw the line. Microsoft has time and time again shown
that they lack any concept of live and let live. If Microsoft, with normal
advertising and persuasion convinces anyone to pay their tolls, I have
absolutely no problems with that. I might think that people who do so
are stupid but I believe that it is anyone's perogative to act stupid
and that it is my competitor's perogative to take advantage of that
stupidity. I have no problem either with you or Ross or anyone else
thinking that people like me who use GPL are stupid and are subjecting
themselves to the plague. What I have a problem with is that Microsoft, a
company with a great deal of cash, uses its cash to convince our law
makers that GPL'd software is like a typhus virus that John Q Public
should be protected from.

So what does that tell *me*? Microsoft does not have te kind of product where
normal persuasion and facts are adequate to maintain a monopolistic
market share and so Microsoft has to resort to other means if it is to
maintain its stock market alure. That's what it is ultimately all
about and that also is the crux of the problem. Microsoft can compete against
IBM, which Ballmer says is *the* competition, because IBM is also
publicly traded. Open Source and the GPL are concepts that cannot be
controlled by anyone and especially not by a stock market so I can
certainly understand the frustration that the Microsoft folks feel having to
compete against something that is like a ghost but I don't feel the
least bit sorry for them. They made their own bed and they will have to
sleep in it, even when it becomes more and more viral, at least they
must be thinking that it is.

So the Open Source community feels helpless to fight the Microsoft cash pile
while MS feels helpless to fight the GPL and Open Source ghosts so both
sides waste great opportunties resorting to FUD.

Live and let live!

Henry




Tony Gravagno wrote: