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 (AT) healthpac (DOT) net or bdc (AT) healthpac (DOT) 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

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:

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.

Dale wrote:
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

On 2007-01-18 05:34:12 -0800, hbkeultjes (AT) gmail (DOT) com said:

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hbkeultjes (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:
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

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.

Rob Bergman wrote:
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

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 (AT) ladybridge (DOT) com> wrote

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 (AT) computer (DOT) org> wrote