Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com

30 views
Skip to first unread message

John Dean

unread,
Oct 30, 2003, 7:00:00 AM10/30/03
to
Many of our supporters have sent email asking for a reason why Rekall has
been taken away from theKompany.com (TKC). Basically, the answer is TKC is
bankrupt. TKC's team of developers have not been paid for over 5 months
(some even longer).

Sometime in June this year, we were are told to find alternative work until
TKC's financial situation improves. The development of Rekall is a full time
job so Mike and myself were unable to comply, since we were already
committed to releasing Rekall V2.1.0 in a timely manner. We decided that it
was unfair to our customers to expect them to wait for TKC's finanical
situation to improve, which could be anything from 12 months to 3 years.
Consequently, Mike and I decided that it would be in the best interest of
our customers if we took back Rekall and continued its development alone.

You may remember what happened with Black Adder, TKCs Python IDE. TKC
released for sale Black Adder beta over 3 years ago at a discounted price,
with a promise of a free upgrade once BA V1.0 stable was completed. BA V1.0
stable made its first appearance at the end of August this year, over 3
years late. This kind of thing is not going to happen with Rekall.

Rekall will always be available from http://www.totalrekall.co.uk and
http://www.rygannon.com. Furthemore, there may be the possibility that
sometime in the future we will release Rekall under the GPL and only charge
a nominal fee for email support on a subscription basis, so keep an eye on
either of the Total Rekall Portals

On behalf of Mike and myself I would like to apoloze for any inconvenience
or confusion our actions may caused.

--
Best Regards
John

Shawn Gordon

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 6:40:29 PM10/31/03
to
We had to let John go this last week, we tried to do it in an amicable
fashion, but John had and has been enganged in this type of activity
for a bit now. Everything in this email is a complete fabrication.
John cannot legally sell the Rekall software, nor does he own it.

I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused anyone, but we're
still here and will be here for a long time to come.

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com

"John Dean" <jo...@rygannon.com> wrote in message news:<3fa0fd21$0$12688$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...

GrayGeek

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 7:53:02 PM10/31/03
to
Shawn Gordon wrote:


http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/15/1042520666517.html
"How profitable is thekompany.com?


Surely you jest :). Last year was good for us, our best yet, we're hovering
at the break even point basically. Keep in mind this company was founded
and funded out of my own pocket, and I'm not, nor ever was, wealthy, there
are no outside investors. In 3.5 years we've built up almost 40
applications running on four platforms with a team of people I've never
physically met. It's a little frustrating to see companies getting funded
with millions of dollars for just ideas that never pan out when we have a
proven track record, but then again we've never actually tried to raise
money, we've built it all on the sweat of our collective brow and some
personal sacrifice, but we all believe in what we are doing, and enjoy the
process and our friends to the extent you can be friends with people you've
never met and have never talked to on the phone. "
--

-
GrayGeek

Lothar Scholz

unread,
Oct 31, 2003, 11:08:16 PM10/31/03
to
sh...@thekompany.com (Shawn Gordon) wrote in message news:<c846bee4.03103...@posting.google.com>...

> for a bit now. Everything in this email is a complete fabrication.

Hmmm, as far as i can remember his comment about the 3 years delay of
the beta phase of Black Adder is not a fabrication. And because the
difference made between beta and final is so small i think he is more
honest then you.

Dmitry Poplavsky

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 3:37:47 AM11/1/03
to
Lothar Scholz wrote:

The diference between beta and release not small,
the release is a totally new application.


Regards
Dmitry.

Alex Martelli

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 5:15:30 AM11/1/03
to
Lothar Scholz wrote:

Hmmm, speaking as a reasonably disinterested observer: yes, Blackadder _was_
in beta for a surprisingly long time. However, the final release seems to
have quite a different architecture than the earlier betas -- instead of
trying to re-do a fully integrated "variant subset of" Qt Designer, it
"shells out" to a bona fide Qt Designer. Personally, I like this choice,
but, like or dislike, I don't see how the difference can be ignored.


Alex

Alex Martelli

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 5:57:46 AM11/1/03
to
Shawn Gordon wrote:
...

> John cannot legally sell the Rekall software, nor does he own it.

*OUCH* -- with you claiming this against them, and they claiming the
same against you, we're exactly in the situation where any potential
customer will run away from Rekall and back into MS Access _fast_...
who needs to risk lawsuits?! Unlikely as it may be, given the current
appearance of enmity, I sure hope you and them can come to some kind
of agreement on this "detail" and make a joint announcement about it,
otherwise, this may just be the Knell of Death for Rekall in the
corporate market, and nobody ain't gonna make any money from it, no
matter who's right and who's wrong about the present controversy.

I do sometimes get asked for advice about "an Access-like product
that's cross-platform" and the like, but I couldn't in good faith
suggest Rekall if I thought that could potentially send the purchaser
into the midst of a legal controversy. Sigh.


Alex

John J. Lee

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:16:02 AM11/1/03
to
llo...@web.de (Lothar Scholz) writes:

It's hard to see how somebody (apparently) falsely claiming the
bankruptcy of a company can be described as behaving honestly.


John

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:27:51 AM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 05:57:46 -0500, Alex Martelli wrote:

> I do sometimes get asked for advice about "an Access-like product that's
> cross-platform" and the like, but I couldn't in good faith suggest
> Rekall if I thought that could potentially send the purchaser into the
> midst of a legal controversy. Sigh.

I don't see much controversy here. If the work was done for theKompany,
then it is a work made for hire, no? In that case, theKompany owns the
rights to the software.

--
Todd Stephens

John Hall

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:19:36 AM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:27:51 GMT, Todd Stephens
<huz...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>I don't see much controversy here. If the work was done for theKompany,
>then it is a work made for hire, no? In that case, theKompany owns the
>rights to the software.

yes, in the usual case. But JD claims that the programmers have not
been paid for the past five months, and probably a significant part of
Rekall was done in that time. (Or maybe not - I might not be very
productive if not being paid as expected).

This things appears to be a nasty mess, and as Alex says, needs to be
clarified pronto.

--
John W Hall <wweexxss...@telus.net>
Cochrane, Alberta, Canada.
"Helping People Prosper in the Information Age"

GrayGeek

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:23:50 AM11/1/03
to
Todd Stephens wrote:

That depends upon the contract, if any, which was signed. I ran my own
consulting business for 18 years and part of my contract boiler plates
handled situations about code ownership. The algorithms and knowledge I
possessed before a contract were not transfered to the client. They owned
the product I delivered to them, including the source, but they agreed they
wouldn't use it to compete against me, as an early client tried to do. Any
proprietary knowledge about their business I learned while writing their
software remained theirs. Any knowledge I acquired which was independent
of their area remained with me...etc.... If course, my working rules also
followed the 20 IRS rules for independent contractors.

If John Dean was an independent contractor, and the URL I cited in a
previous posting, which is a comment by Shawn Gordon himself, seemed to
imply such, ("a team of people I've never physically met." ... "to the


extent you can be friends with people you've never met and have never

talked to on the phone.") then I get the impression that Gordon was a
marketeer, a person selling code 'on consignment' and that he had a
'friendly' relationship, not a contractual one, with several coders around
the world. John Dean may have happened to be one who lives in the US.

I'm sure we'll find out more as the days pass by. Probably someone will
post pertinent sections of a contract, or examples of prior art, etc...
Meanwhile, ReKall appears to be in some sort of limbo for those putative
customers who don't want to be left stranded by legal wrangles. Gordon
legal power may be effective here, but not at other locations around the
globe where other contributors to theKompany code base live.
???
--

-
GrayGeek

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 11:50:32 AM11/1/03
to
j...@pobox.com (John J. Lee) writes:
> It's hard to see how somebody (apparently) falsely claiming the
> bankruptcy of a company can be described as behaving honestly.

The claim that I see is that:

Basically, the answer is TKC is bankrupt. TKC's team of developers
have not been paid for over 5 months (some even longer).

The word "bankrupt" is qualified by the word "basically" which I take
to mean that TKC is out of money but there has not yet necessarily
been a legal filing of bankruptcy. On the other hand, the claim that
the dev team hasn't been paid for >= 5 months is specific and either
true or false.

Are you saying that the claim is false and that the developers have
actually been paid within the past 5 months?

John J. Lee

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 6:12:34 PM11/1/03
to
Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

> j...@pobox.com (John J. Lee) writes:
> > It's hard to see how somebody (apparently) falsely claiming the
> > bankruptcy of a company can be described as behaving honestly.
>
> The claim that I see is that:
>
> Basically, the answer is TKC is bankrupt. TKC's team of developers
> have not been paid for over 5 months (some even longer).
>
> The word "bankrupt" is qualified by the word "basically" which I take
> to mean that TKC is out of money but there has not yet necessarily
> been a legal filing of bankruptcy. On the other hand, the claim that

[...]

OK. It certainly didn't read that way to me. But I guess I should
assume it was just unclear rather than dishonest. Apologies!


> Are you saying that the claim is false and that the developers have
> actually been paid within the past 5 months?

No idea!


John

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 6:15:19 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 11:50:32 -0500, Paul Rubin wrote:

> The claim that I see is that:
>
> Basically, the answer is TKC is bankrupt. TKC's team of developers
> have not been paid for over 5 months (some even longer).
>
> The word "bankrupt" is qualified by the word "basically" which I take to
> mean that TKC is out of money but there has not yet necessarily been a

Regardless of the OP's intentions, I think the word "bankrupt" is not
qualified by "basically" so much as it is qualified by "is".

--
Todd Stephens

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 6:18:54 PM11/1/03
to
Todd Stephens <huz...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> Regardless of the OP's intentions, I think the word "bankrupt" is not
> qualified by "basically" so much as it is qualified by "is".

I read the OP as saying TKC is basically bankrupt. I don't know what
the actual facts surrounding TKC are. I didn't see any indication
that it had legally filed bankruptcy and I don't really care since I'm
not a creditor. What I want to know is whether it's paying its
programmers and shipping product. There are conflicting claims about
whether it's paying its programmers. Which claims are correct?

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 7:09:49 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:18:54 -0500, Paul Rubin wrote:

> What I want to know is whether it's paying its programmers and shipping
> product. There are conflicting claims about whether it's paying its
> programmers. Which claims are correct?

True enough. I would say they are shipping product, though I don't know
the status of Rekall specifically. The libertarian side of me wants to
side with the programmer (the 'little-guy' individual trying to make a
living), but the consumer side of me (who is a satisfied owner of several
of tKc's embedded products) wants to side with the company.

BTW, is Kapital written in Python? I don't see why this thread is even
here save for tKc's involvement with BlackAdder.

--
Todd Stephens

Lothar Scholz

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 7:35:09 PM11/1/03
to
j...@pobox.com (John J. Lee) wrote in message news:<87r80sd...@pobox.com>...

Maybe i'm wrong with the difference between the Beta and Final of
Black Adder.
I just looked at the Feature List and that didn't change very much.

But i don't see any statement about the financial state of
"TheKompany", and
not commenting John's statement is also a comment. If it is true that
the programmer are not paid for 5 month i think the consequence is
absolutely
clear.

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 7:21:02 PM11/1/03
to
Todd Stephens <huz...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> True enough. I would say they are shipping product, though I don't know
> the status of Rekall specifically. The libertarian side of me wants to
> side with the programmer (the 'little-guy' individual trying to make a
> living), but the consumer side of me (who is a satisfied owner of several
> of tKc's embedded products) wants to side with the company.

Why side with the company if it's not paying its programmers? The
business model was charge for the software and use some of the cash to
pay the programmers. If the programmers aren't getting paid, the
correct pro-consumer sentiment is to call for the software to be
released for free.

John Hall

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:12:33 PM11/1/03
to
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 00:09:49 GMT, Todd Stephens
<huz...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>BTW, is Kapital written in Python? I don't see why this thread is even
>here save for tKc's involvement with BlackAdder.


The OP was about Rekall, not Kapital or BlackAdder.
Rekall _IS_ in Python.

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:17:35 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 19:21:02 -0500, Paul Rubin wrote:

> Why side with the company if it's not paying its programmers? The
> business model was charge for the software and use some of the cash to
> pay the programmers. If the programmers aren't getting paid, the
> correct pro-consumer sentiment is to call for the software to be
> released for free.

Well, we don't *know* the facts for sure. The OP is obviously a former
employee of the company, and his credibility is shadowed -whether justly
or not- by being disgruntled. I say he is disgruntled because someone
with no bone to pick would not have gone around posting as he did. And
his assertion that Rekall is not available from theKompany is incorrect
as I went to their site today and it is indeed for sale there. But, I
again have to ask how this is related to the Python language?

--
Todd Stephens

Ian Bicking

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 8:13:44 PM11/1/03
to Todd Stephens, pytho...@python.org

Rekall is the topic of discussion, and it's Python. Looks pretty cool
too -- a niche that badly needs filling by something Open Source.
Well, it still does need filling since Rekall is commercial...

--
Ian Bicking | ia...@colorstudy.com | http://blog.ianbicking.org


Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:06:47 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:13:44 -0500, Ian Bicking wrote:

> Rekall is the topic of discussion, and it's Python. Looks pretty cool
> too -- a niche that badly needs filling by something Open Source. Well,
> it still does need filling since Rekall is commercial...

I meant Rekall, but somehow typed Kapital :P Anyway, it does indeed look
like a great app. I am patiently waiting for the KOffice team to put
Kexi in a production state, but I don't think that is at all Python
related.

--
Todd Stephens

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:07:07 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:17:35 -0500, Todd Stephens wrote:

> I went to their site today and it is indeed for sale there. But, I
> again have to ask how this is related to the Python language?

Others have answered this.

--
Todd Stephens

Todd Stephens

unread,
Nov 1, 2003, 9:05:33 PM11/1/03
to
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 20:12:33 -0500, John Hall wrote:

> The OP was about Rekall, not Kapital or BlackAdder. Rekall _IS_ in
> Python.

Sorry, typo on my part. I meant Rekall, and thank you for clearing it
up.

--
Todd Stephens

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 1:19:53 PM11/3/03
to

> We had to let John go this last week, we tried to do it in an amicable
> fashion, but John had and has been enganged in this type of activity
> for a bit now.

Unfortunately, this is not the truth and Shawn knows it.
1. I wasn't let go, I quit
2. Shawn and I had a resellers agreement
3. Shawn was fully aware that I had set up a Forum to provide support. This
is/was something I had been trying to get him to do for many month, without
success

> Everything in this email is a complete fabrication.

The facts speak for thenselves

> John cannot legally sell the Rekall software, nor does he own it.

This is not completely true. I have no agreement, either written or verbal
with regards to the status of Rekall.
TKC only have rights to the Rekall name. The copyright of the software
itself is owned by Mike Richardson
Rekall will be release under the GPL under its original name KBase

>
> I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused anyone, but we're
> still here and will be here for a long time to come

It is just a matter of time before TKC goes under and that time is very,
very short


--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 1:25:39 PM11/3/03
to

On 1-Nov-2003, Todd Stephens <huz...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> I don't see much controversy here. If the work was done for theKompany,
> then it is a work made for hire, no? In that case, theKompany owns the
> rights to the software.

The copyright was never signed over to TKC. As with all agreements there is
a requirement on both sides. Therefore, since TKC failed to honor it's side
of the agreement that agreement is null and void and Rekall, now know as
KBase reverts to it original owner. There are other issues which I shall no
go into at the moment which nullifies TKC claim of ownship

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:03:42 PM11/3/03
to
Here are some facts which I can back up with copies of email sent to the
team by Shawn Gordon

1. I worked for TKC for a little over 2 years
2. The first 2 months I recieved not a single cent in payment
3. The 3 month I was paid the equivalent of one weeks pay
4. I never once in two received a full months money
5. In June we were all told to find alternative employment until TKC gets
back in it feet again
6. My last pay month was May 2003

Both Mike and I are willing to write off TKC debt if Shawn agrees to allow
us to release Rekall under the GPL.

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:06:44 PM11/3/03
to
Rekall is total dependant on Python, hence the reason for the discussion
Kapital is based on KDELibs, Python not included nor is there any Python in
any embedded app, save tkcRekall and tkcRekallLite

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:07:46 PM11/3/03
to
Rekall is to be released under the GPL

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:09:50 PM11/3/03
to

On 2-Nov-2003, Paul Rubin <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

> If the programmers aren't getting paid, the
> correct pro-consumer sentiment is to call for the software to be
> released for free.

And it will be, you can be certain of that.

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:15:42 PM11/3/03
to
Let me clarify a small point. TKC have refused to withdraw Rekall from sale.
Rekall V2.1.0 the latest version is not available from TKC. Disgruntled as I
am I wish TKC the all the very best regarding sales of all their other
products, but we owe to ur user base to inform them that the latest version
and all subseqent version of Rekall will not be available from TKC

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 2:27:39 PM11/3/03
to
Nice sales and markets pitch but not exactly true if you compare that with
this email snippet dated 18.8.03

John I told that we are flat broke

7.8.03

I meant to talk to you yesterday. There is like $50 in the account right
now. last month was our worst sales month in over a year

22.8.03

I'll answer all the various emails at once. This has been a pretty
terrible summer for sales thus far, June and July were some of our worst
months in almost 2 years

And there are lots more of the same. They make interesting reading,
especially in the context of the what is said onn the TKC web site


--
Best Regards
John

GrayGeek

unread,
Nov 3, 2003, 8:35:10 PM11/3/03
to
John Dean wrote:

Are there other, licensed technologies combined with ReKall, such as
database drivers, etc., which would cripple a GPL version of ReKall?
--

-
GrayGeek

John Dean

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 6:35:35 AM11/4/03
to

On 4-Nov-2003, GrayGeek <jkrep...@FISHneb.rr.com> wrote:

> Are there other, licensed technologies combined with ReKall, such as
> database drivers, etc., which would cripple a GPL version of ReKall?

I would say not. We include drivers for MySQL, PostgreSQL and xBase. We do
have drivers for DB2, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, and ODBC, but I suppose they
would have to be sold as commercial plugins, much as we don't want to

--
Best Regards
John

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 5:00:21 PM11/4/03
to
"John Dean" <jo...@rygannon.com> writes:
> > Are there other, licensed technologies combined with ReKall, such as
> > database drivers, etc., which would cripple a GPL version of ReKall?
>
> I would say not. We include drivers for MySQL, PostgreSQL and xBase. We do
> have drivers for DB2, Oracle, Informix, Sybase, and ODBC, but I suppose they
> would have to be sold as commercial plugins, much as we don't want to

I'd say screw it. Just ship with what you have and don't worry about the other
stuff. It will get taken care of, like it did for the Perl DBI package.

GrayGeek

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 6:15:20 PM11/4/03
to
Paul Rubin wrote:

I don't know. I'd love to convert totally to Python (I am using
Boa-Constructor) but right now I am having a hard time finding an Oracle 9i
driver that works. Neither cx_Oracle for Python 2.2 or the one for 2.3
work. They fail on the import statement. I don't want to use jpython's
driver.
--

-
GrayGeek

John Dean

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 6:29:38 PM11/4/03
to
I meant to reply to you privately but.
Anyway I take your point and I guess that is what we will do

BTW Didn't we meet once at a Perl User Group meeting when I was still
working for MySQL? Monty and David were giving a talk if I remember

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 4, 2003, 6:33:28 PM11/4/03
to
Dima
You know as well as I know that you did not spend 3 years doing a re-write,
3 months may be. You were only assigned to the project because of all the
complaints that were coming in

--
Best Regards
John

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:51:48 AM11/5/03
to

I'm not sure who you're replying to. If you mean me, I don't think
we've ever met. I've never been to a Perl User Group meeting.

Paul Rubin

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 11:54:41 AM11/5/03
to
GrayGeek <jkrep...@FISHneb.rr.com> writes:
> I don't know. I'd love to convert totally to Python (I am using
> Boa-Constructor) but right now I am having a hard time finding an Oracle 9i
> driver that works. Neither cx_Oracle for Python 2.2 or the one for 2.3
> work. They fail on the import statement. I don't want to use jpython's
> driver.

Maybe you can use MxDB or whatever it's called, if you want to
use something non-free (e.g. if you were willing to use TKC Rekall
in the first place, and since you're using Oracle anyway).

I think it's a ridiculous deficiency in Python that it doesn't come
with database drivers in its standard library. Maybe someone can port
over the ones from PHP or Perl DBI. I'd be willing to do that if
funding and access to a development box with the relevant databases is
available.

Richie Hindle

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 12:23:25 PM11/5/03
to pytho...@python.org

[John]

> Rekall is to be released under the GPL

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction. GPL'd code can be
used commercially. The Open Source Definition
(http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) makes this clear:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps
that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial
users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Needless to say, the GPL meets the conditions of the Open Source
Definition.

(I don't have an axe to grind over any of the issues here - I'm just
pointing out a factual inaccuracy.)

--
Richie Hindle
ric...@entrian.com


GrayGeek

unread,
Nov 5, 2003, 7:08:10 PM11/5/03
to
Paul Rubin wrote:

I agree. It's a BIG hold back
--

-
GrayGeek

Lothar Scholz

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 12:44:56 AM11/6/03
to
"John Dean" <jo...@rygannon.com> wrote in message news:<3fa69c25$0$12666$fa0f...@lovejoy.zen.co.uk>...

> >
> > I'm sorry for any confusion this might have caused anyone, but we're
> > still here and will be here for a long time to come
>
> It is just a matter of time before TKC goes under and that time is very,
> very short

Do you know something about the "BlackAdder" copyright. If there are
the same problems as with "Rekall" i'm not very happy to spend 400
USD.

Maybe a statement from TKC is necessary, something like QT has given -
when the company stops the product for a long time they will put the
product under the GPL.

phil hunt

unread,
Nov 6, 2003, 12:51:36 PM11/6/03
to
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:23:25 +0000, Richie Hindle <ric...@entrian.com> wrote:
>
>[John]
>> Rekall is to be released under the GPL
>
>Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
>free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.

Not at all. The website says:

==================================================================
We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel
licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
version and the normal commercial version.

The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
you would need to take out a support subscription.
The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

The commerical version would include a basic level support
subscription valid for 12 months and you would be allowed to use
Rekall commerically.
=================================================================

There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: <zen2...@zen.co.ku>, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).


Richie Hindle

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 5:50:20 AM11/7/03
to pytho...@python.org

[Richie]

> Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
> free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.

[Phil]


> There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
> all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
> be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
> that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

You are right of course. Let me be more precise (addressing John again):

The words used on your website seem to me to imply that the GPL version
could not be used commercially. If that is the intention of those words,
you are mistaken about either the meaning of the GPL, or your power as a
copyright owner to control the application of the GPL to your code. If
you release your code under the GPL, it can be used commercially, and you
cannot change that.

(I vote Phil for pedant of the week. 8-)

--
Richie Hindle
ric...@entrian.com


Paul Boddie

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 6:55:56 AM11/7/03
to
ph...@invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbql2h8...@cabalamat.cabalamat.org>...

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:23:25 +0000, Richie Hindle <ric...@entrian.com> wrote:
> >
> >Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
> >free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.
>
> Not at all. The website says:
>
> ==================================================================
> We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel
> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
> version and the normal commercial version.

Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
whether the developers have misinterpreted the GPL or are trying to
layer their own incompatible stipulations on top.

> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
> you would need to take out a support subscription.
> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
sentence?

[Rest of notice cut]

> There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
> all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
> be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
> that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

Paul

Alex Martelli

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 9:11:37 AM11/7/03
to
Paul Boddie wrote:
...

>> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
>> version and the normal commercial version.
>
> Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
> with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
> source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know

*blink* surely the source has to be given only if the binaries are?
Can't stop others from redistributing that, but "demand the source
code w/o buying anything" doesn't seem something the GPL mandates.


>> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
>> you would need to take out a support subscription.
>> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.
>
> You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
> was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
> sentence?

Presumably in the "obvious way", yes:-).


> Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
> downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
> allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
> ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
> mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

No, your analogy is misplaced: the "aren't allowed" would be
overtly false in your "it's like".

A correct analogy would be: "I never strangle somebody with the
initials PB on a Friday". This statement _is_ perfectly true: I
never strangle anybody at all, and therefore, in particular, not
people with the initials PB, and even more specifically, not
on a Friday,

However, it's _misleading_ because, although Aristotelian logic
has nothing to say in the matter, people "naturally expect" that
a qualification restricting a statement is there for SOME reason:
typically because, without the restriction, the statement would
not hold. But that's just a heuristical inference based on "if
the restriction wasn't necessary he wouldn't bother stating it" --
there's nothing either dishonest or contradictory in putting on
a statement _more_ qualifications than strictly necessary (it's
the difference between "precondition" and "WEAKEST precondition").

E.g., a similarly misleading statement would be "In Euclidean
geometry, there is one and only one perpendicular to a given
line through a given external point". The qualification "In
Euclidean geometry" is way stronger than necessary, since
existence and uniqueness of the perpendicular follow from the
first _four_ axioms of Euclid only, _not_ needing the fifth
one which is not valid in non-Euclidean geometries such as
Riemann's and Lobachevsky's.

And yet, unless I have specifically undertaken to tutor
somebody in a field including non-Euclidean geometries, I
might well make such a statement and consider it defensible.
Indeed, I have seen _proofs_ of this very statement, based
on other results which _do_ hold in Euclidean geometry only...
Presumably, depending on context, the responsibility for
learning about NON-Euclidean geometries may be held to belong
to the reader of my statements, without any duty on my part
to instruct said reader in this subject.

Similarly, the asserters of the above statement (falsely
claimed to be contradictory, though truly claimable as being
misleading) might contend that the responsibility for learning
about the GPL belong to their customers, without any duty on
their part to instruct said customers. I'm gonna stay neutral
on the specifics, but I've always been fascinated by the issues
of NON-weakest preconditions and qualification in many fields
(natural language, programming, and logic) so I couldn't resist...:-)


Alex

Tim Ronning

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 11:39:08 AM11/7/03
to Alex Martelli, pytho...@python.org

Puuuhhh! And I just ordered your Nutshell book. God thing it was COD!

Joke aside, I'm sure it's fine, I just coldn't resist either......:-)

Rgds
Tim R.

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

John Dean

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 11:14:02 AM11/7/03
to

On 5-Nov-2003, Richie Hindle <ric...@entrian.com> wrote:

> Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
> free for non-commercial use"

The above statement as been removed

--
Best Regards
John

John Dean

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 11:33:49 AM11/7/03
to
> [Richie]
> > Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would
> > be
> > free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.

The above statement has been removed.
But I should point out that only Rekall for Linux will be released under the
GPL. If all goes well those variant will follow

>
> [Phil]
> > There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
> > all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
> > be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
> > that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.
>
> You are right of course. Let me be more precise (addressing John again):
>
> The words used on your website seem to me to imply that the GPL version
> could not be used commercially. If that is the intention of those words,
> you are mistaken about either the meaning of the GPL, or your power as a
> copyright owner to control the application of the GPL to your code. If
> you release your code under the GPL, it can be used commercially, and you
> cannot change that.
>
> (I vote Phil for pedant of the week. 8-)


--
Best Regards
John

phil hunt

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 1:38:03 PM11/7/03
to

Absolutely.

> or is it just
>downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
>allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
>ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
>mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

No. AFAICT, it never makes two statements of the forms X and not-X.

phil hunt

unread,
Nov 7, 2003, 1:36:23 PM11/7/03
to

Weeee! I get an award!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages