Java

26 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Phillips

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 5:22:00 AM8/14/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource
Hi all,

Here is an opportunity for the open source community to show
commitment to collaborative development.

We have a need to access QM from Java. We can set up a project to do
this in-house but it seems the sort of thing that the open source
community might like to do (if they haven't already done it).

Thoughts?


Martin Phillips, Ladybridge Systems

Ashley Chapman

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 6:53:22 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
We have a need to access QM from Java. We can set up a project to do
this in-house but it seems the sort of thing that the open source
community might like to do (if they haven't already done it).
Ashley

Martin Phillips

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 9:05:37 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ashley,
 
This is licensed under the GPL and has a copyright holder who is not you. This seems to make it impossible for it to be contributed to QM under the terms of the modified BSD licence. The client who needs this cannot use a GPL version.
 
 
Martin Phillips
Ladybridge Systems Ltd
17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB
+44-(0)1604-709200

Ashley Chapman

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:03:52 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
2009/8/14 Martin Phillips <martinp...@ladybridge.com>:

> Hi Ashley,
>
>> It's already done, albeit as a port from a D3 version
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jd3/
> and
> http://groups.google.com/group/openqm-opensource/browse_thread/thread/efecf8824e1df730
>
> This is licensed under the GPL and has a copyright holder who is not you.
> This seems to make it impossible for it to be contributed to QM under the
> terms of the modified BSD licence. The client who needs this cannot use a
> GPL version.

Exactly. Go to the top of the class!

This is why we are not abusing your GPL release of OpenQM by using it
in a commercial environment.

What's source for the goose, is source for the gander!


Ashley

Martin Phillips

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:14:43 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ashley,

> Exactly. Go to the top of the class!
>
> This is why we are not abusing your GPL release of OpenQM by
> using it in a commercial environment.
>
> What's source for the goose, is source for the gander!

Which shows exactly why we have no belief that the open source community
have any intention of participating in collaborative development.

Ashley Chapman

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:38:12 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
2009/8/14 Martin Phillips <martinp...@ladybridge.com>:

>
> Hi Ashley,
>
>> Exactly. Go to the top of the class!
>>
>> This is why we are not abusing your GPL release of OpenQM by
>> using it in a commercial environment.
>>
>> What's source for the goose, is source for the gander!
>
> Which shows exactly why we have no belief that the open source community
> have any intention of participating in collaborative development.

Haha, that's funny. Made me laugh out loud!

If you want a collaboration, it's usual to expect a equitable
relationship. Quid pro quo. If you want to get BSD licensed
contributions, then release your code under BSD.

It really is that simple.

Ashley

Gene Buckle

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:46:00 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Martin Phillips wrote:

>
> Hi Ashley,
>
>> Exactly. Go to the top of the class!
>>
>> This is why we are not abusing your GPL release of OpenQM by
>> using it in a commercial environment.
>>
>> What's source for the goose, is source for the gander!
>
> Which shows exactly why we have no belief that the open source community
> have any intention of participating in collaborative development.
>

*pop*

What the fuck do you think the whole IPv6 update was about, you smarmy
little bitch? Glen & I worked really hard on that update and it was
offered to you under a dual license. You didn't have the balls to step up
to the plate and even acknowledge the contribution.

You constantly and consistantly treat people like they're all personally
after your little pot of gold and then have the audacity deny it and point
out how nobody contributes.

From the _instant_ you released a GPL source tree, you've done _nothing_
to foster community participation. You put the main download behind a
password wall that essentially threatens anyone that wants the source.
You consistantly treat anyone that's interested in the GPL version like
they're some kind of digital thug and then act all surprised when you get
called on it.

Frankly, I'm glad you don't participate. Until I started working on
op_skt.c, I was convinced that I was the worst C programmer on the planet.
If you worked for me and wrote code like that, I'd fire you with
trebuchet.

Oh, and what is this "we" shit? You're not royalty there sparky, despite
your delusions to the contrary.

Congrats Martin, you got me to blow a gasket. Now you can go around and
look smug to all your little buddies and crow about how right you were.

Asshat.

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes.
http://www.scarletdme.org - Get it _today_!

Steve Bush

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 11:54:58 AM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi Ashley,

We have a discussion going on in Scarlet started by you about moving to
requiring bsd licence for submissions but you seem to be suggesting that
here that we do not. I am now officially confused.

There are huge benefits for all concerned IF we manage to realign the
commercial and gpl releases again and Martin seems to be back in the arena.
Lets capitalise on that.

Cheers,
Steve

Diccon

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:08:03 PM8/14/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource
What short memories you all have.
TomP and I developed a Beta Native Java to QMClient over a year ago
now. Its how we got into QMClient at all.

Its not that pretty under the skin, but it works. I use it internally
for various GUI development.
It hasn't been released LGPL yet as we weren't quite happy with the
readability of some of the code.

Would Lesser GPL be acceptable Martin? It would allow use in a
completely Commercial and proprietary environment, while giving us
some assurance that the Java library itself would not be stolen away
from us.
I must also point out that any licensing issues need to be agreed on
by myelf and Tom Potts, as we both have substantial ownership of the
code. Tom was the original author.

Let me discuss it with him and see what we come to.

-Diccon

Steve Bush

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:11:53 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Whatever Martin did in the past, he is now tentatively discussing putting up
a subversion repository to aid contributions such as your IP6 work. If he
does this then all your issues with him are essentially resolved and we can
forgive and forget.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openqm-o...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openqm-
> opens...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gene Buckle
> Sent: 14 August 2009 19:46
> To: openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [OSS] Re: Java
>
>

Martin Phillips

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:22:49 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi Diccon,

> Would Lesser GPL be acceptable Martin?

The need for Java support has come from a third party software tool vendor
who wishes to interface with QM in a commercial product.

The requirements as I see them are:
* It must be available for all major platforms on which commercial QM runs.

* It must be distributable by the tool vendor to his clients. To make it
more generally useful rather than restricted to this one application, it
should be distributed with QM even if we don't own it or have rights to
modify it.

* It must be released in binary form so that the user does not need to build
it.

* There must be no separate licence charges.

* It must be fully supported.

Within these requirements, there is no reason why it cannot remain a third
party product but I can see that the vendor might require some assurance
that it will not go away.

If the above (which I admit asks a lot) is not acceptable, we will have to
do this in-house, duplicating your work.

Gene Buckle

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:25:45 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Steve Bush wrote:

>
> Whatever Martin did in the past, he is now tentatively discussing putting up
> a subversion repository to aid contributions such as your IP6 work. If he
> does this then all your issues with him are essentially resolved and we can
> forgive and forget.
>

Nah, I'm done with him. Fool me once and all that. The dual license for
the IPv6 work is still in place, no hidden stick.

I wish you enormous amounts of luck Steve. Frankly I think my backside
will become a porcine aircraft carrier long before he'll actually step
up to the plate.

Diccon

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:26:22 PM8/14/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource
Gene is right though, the IPv6 layer was designed for the new D3
implementation.
This is our proffered and intended future development.

-Diccon
> Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007http://www.f15sim.com- The only one of its kind.

Gene Buckle

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:38:08 PM8/14/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Diccon wrote:

>
> Gene is right though, the IPv6 layer was designed for the new D3
> implementation.
> This is our proffered and intended future development.
>

Actually, the IPv6 feature was a side benefit of updating the 2.6-6 socket
code to comply with the 2.8 changes. Cedric had used a 2.8 flag in his
version of the JD3 server code. I never did get back to seeing if it
worked after re-writing op_skt.c :)

g.

--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007

http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind.

ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment

Martin Phillips

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 12:53:11 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi Steve,

> Whatever Martin did in the past, he is now tentatively discussing
> putting up a subversion repository to aid contributions such as your
> IP6 work. If he does this then all your issues with him are essentially
> resolved and we can forgive and forget.

In the light of the highly abusive postings from Ashley and Gene, we are
seriously considering abandoning the open source collaborative develoment
completely. It is clear that the developer community does not share our
views on what this is about. We will need to discuss this further internally
and with some of our key business partners before taking action.

There will continue to be some form of open source offering but it will, as
before, be just the core multivalue engine and we may impose some more
restrictive licensing conditions to control how it is used. We will not
necessarily expect to get anything back but, equally, we will not post any
new developments except those that are contributed.

We are also considering a source option for licensed commercial users who
want to extend the product within their own environment but not for
distribution. There are some interesting issues to resolve before we can do
this but it has possibilities.

Incidentally, despite Gene's rantings, we are unaware of his IPv6
development being offered to us. There are no references to it within either
of the OpenQM Google groups and I can find no references within any of our
email boxes. Certainly we have not received a submission document. It is a
trivial development that has been low on our wish list for a long time and
we will probably do it ourselves in the not too distant future.

Gene Buckle

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 1:14:12 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
> In the light of the highly abusive postings from Ashley and Gene, we are
> seriously considering abandoning the open source collaborative develoment
> completely. It is clear that the developer community does not share our
> views on what this is about. We will need to discuss this further internally
> and with some of our key business partners before taking action.
>
Ashly wasn't highly abusive. *I* was. Quit twisting things.

How can you abandon something you never participated in? Regardless, I'm
one person, not a community. Taking punative action on many because of
the words of one is....typical.

I'll make you a deal Martin, you go right along and "participate" as much
as you're willing. I'll shut up. You won't hear another ranting thing
from me. Hell, even if you take your ball and run home, I'll shut up.
It's much better for my blood pressure either way.

> There will continue to be some form of open source offering but it will, as
> before, be just the core multivalue engine and we may impose some more
> restrictive licensing conditions to control how it is used. We will not
> necessarily expect to get anything back but, equally, we will not post any
> new developments except those that are contributed.
>

Yeah, good luck with that sparky. You can't un-GPL a code base. You'd
have to *gasp* issue the sources for an updated version.

> We are also considering a source option for licensed commercial users who
> want to extend the product within their own environment but not for
> distribution. There are some interesting issues to resolve before we can do
> this but it has possibilities.
>

That would be good for the customer. Maybe you're not a total loss.

> Incidentally, despite Gene's rantings, we are unaware of his IPv6
> development being offered to us. There are no references to it within either
> of the OpenQM Google groups and I can find no references within any of our
> email boxes. Certainly we have not received a submission document. It is a
> trivial development that has been low on our wish list for a long time and
> we will probably do it ourselves in the not too distant future.
>

If I cared enough at this point, I'd dig up the thread where it was
discussed. I don't exactly recall which list.

I'm surprised you consider what was essentially a complete rewrite of
op_skt.c to be "trivial". Oh that's right. Outside efforts are
"trivial", inside efforts are "valuable". Got it. Thanks for that.
Really.

Ashley Chapman

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 1:20:01 PM8/14/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
> In the light of the highly abusive postings from Ashley

I don't recall doing that. If I did, then I do apologize unreservedly
for offending you.

What specifically are you referring to, so I can be sure I do not
repeat the offence?


Ashley Chapman

GlenB

unread,
Aug 14, 2009, 2:27:22 PM8/14/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource


On Aug 14, 12:53 pm, "Martin Phillips" <martinphill...@ladybridge.com>
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, despite Gene's rantings, we are unaware of his IPv6
> development being offered to us. There are no references to it within either
> of the OpenQM Google groups and I can find no references within any of our
> email boxes. Certainly we have not received a submission document. It is a
> trivial development that has been low on our wish list for a long time and
> we will probably do it ourselves in the not too distant future.
>

http://groups.google.com/group/openqm-opensource/browse_thread/thread/2feb1d9d36c0f486#


> Martin Phillips
> Ladybridge Systems Ltd
> 17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB
> +44-(0)1604-709200

GlenB

Tom Potts

unread,
Aug 16, 2009, 7:14:03 PM8/16/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Martin et al.  Sorry I've been away for the last few days, but Diccon let me know about this request, and we agreed that the LGPL seems to be the right direction as far as we are concerned.

2009/8/14 Martin Phillips <martinp...@ladybridge.com>


Hi Diccon,

> Would Lesser GPL be acceptable Martin?

The need for Java support has come from a third party software tool vendor
who wishes to interface with QM in a commercial product.

The requirements as I see them are:
* It must be available for all major platforms on which commercial QM runs.

Java is very portable, and the library is written in pure Java.  It relies on the NIO package, but as this is part of the Java specification it should be available on any Java-enabled platform.
 
* It must be distributable by the tool vendor to his clients. To make it
more generally useful rather than restricted to this one application, it
should be distributed with QM even if we don't own it or have rights to
modify it.

This is perfectly possible with the LGPL; the LGPL (and indeed, the GPL) specifically allows for 'mere aggregation' with other code, so distributing the Java client library with QM or any other propriety would be fine.

* It must be released in binary form so that the user does not need to build
it.

Well, yes, but it seems a little pointless as the library itself is used in user-written code.  Perhaps you could clarify this one for me?
 
* There must be no separate licence charges. 

Not a problem with LGPL.
 
* It must be fully supported.

This is the sticky wicket, really.  Both Diccon and myself (and everyone else, I'm sure) would be happy to give what is often referred to as 'community support', but full support is really something you have to pay for.  These are your clients, Martin, so I would suggest your developers familiarise themselves with the project and provide the support themselves; alternatively, I'm sure you could outsource support to Diccon's company, as they've been the driving force behind the development and have extensive knowledge of the library.

Within these requirements, there is no reason why it cannot remain a third
party product but I can see that the vendor might require some assurance
that it will not go away.

Well, in some ways that is the advantage of the GPL -- it simply cannot 'go away' in any reasonable sense; if Diccon, myself and everyone else drops off the face of the earth, the client themselves will have a copy of the source.  And of course, if you're distributing it with QM yourselves, there's another layer of protection.

If the above (which I admit asks a lot) is not acceptable, we will have to
do this in-house, duplicating your work.

Well, I hope everything above is to your liking -- most of the points above are addressed by release under the LGPL, although I can see how support might be an issue.  Please digest, consider and let us know what you think!

Tom

Ashley Chapman

unread,
Aug 17, 2009, 3:16:23 AM8/17/09
to openqm-o...@googlegroups.com
Steve,

> We have a discussion going on in Scarlet started by you about moving to
> requiring bsd licence for submissions but you seem to be suggesting that
> here that we do not. I am now officially confused.

As this is a Scarlet discussion, I'll answer your question on that forum
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/scarletdme/browse_thread/thread/6d56f828801f8770?hl=en

Ashley

Diccon

unread,
Aug 17, 2009, 8:01:14 AM8/17/09
to OpenQM-OpenSource
Martin, have emailed you privately about this matter if you want to
discuss it further.
Just in case spam filters strike :)
-Diccon

On 14 Aug, 17:53, "Martin Phillips" <martinphill...@ladybridge.com>
wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages