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

#51

Rob Bergman wrote:

Quote:

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

#52

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 (AT) ladybridge (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

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

#53

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... (AT) spamplease (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

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... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in messagenews:1169127252.035794.64760 (AT) l53g2000cwa (DOT) 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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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

comp.databases.pick comp.databases.pick

Re: Looking for PICK or PICK-Like database with no charge for unlimited users - 01-23-2007 , 10:30 AM

Re: Looking for PICK or PICK-Like database with no charge for unlimited users - 01-23-2007 , 06:32 PM

Re: Looking for PICK or PICK-Like database with no charge for unlimited users - 01-25-2007 , 08:29 AM