New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
Diccon
name.
The project and product will now be called Scarlet DME (Data
Management Environment)
We've had this ready for some time but Its about time we announced it.
This should help everyone distinguish Between Ladybridge's Commercial
QM and the OpenSource version.
We can be found at http://www.ScarletDME.org (Same server as before,
just new domain available)
http://gpl.openqm.com will continue to function as long as Ladybridge
will have us.
Changing every name reference is going to take a little while so bear
with us and the name OpenQM and ScarletDME will be considered
synonymous until we have tidied up all the loose ends.
This is simply a name change, nothing else. We hope to continue our
good relations with LadyBridge and will happily share information and
code. Most of the current services will continue to work as they are
(Wiki, Subversion, downloads, website, etc). Any significant changes
change will be announced separately on the main page of http://www.ScarletDME.org
There is a new Google group (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/
scarletdme?hl=en-GB) , but your welcome to stay on OpenQM-OpenSource
if you don't want the hassle of changing. All developers will stay on
both for now.
--
Diccon Tesson
ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment
http://www.ScarletDME.org
Martin Phillips
> The project and product will now be called Scarlet DME (Data
> Management Environment)
I may be wrong but this looks like one more step away from participating in
a joint venture. It's odd that on one hand we have Steve Bush who would like
to see the cooperation that was intended when the open source was first
released and on the other hand we have this clear lack of interest in
working together.
I guess that it just reinforces my opinion that the only desire of the open
source community was to take whatever we released and to give nothing back.
It certainly makes it extremely unlikely that we can ever come together into
a happy relationship again.
Re the name change, please remember that under the terms of the GPL the
original copyright statement must remain in the source code and be displayed
by the product.
> http://gpl.openqm.com will continue to function as long as Ladybridge
> will have us.
I see little motivation for us to keep this unless there is a genuine
intention to return things to the commercial stream. We will see.
> This is simply a name change, nothing else. We hope to continue our
> good relations with LadyBridge and will happily share information
> and code.
It isn't a shared development unless it can be used by us. This implies that
it must be contributed under the modified BSD licence as on our web site.
Martin Phillips
Ladybridge Systems Ltd
17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB
+44-(0)1604-709200
eppick77
about a name change. Of course, it could be done offline but publicly
there has been no discussion that I am aware of nor has there been a
"vote" that I am aware of.
I certainly have not voted on nor would I vote for this.
Could you give more detail as to this change?
Eugene
On Aug 10, 12:51 pm, Diccon <diccon.tes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Its worth noting the pure GPL version of OpenQM is moving to it's new
> name.
>
> The project and product will now be called Scarlet DME (Data
> Management Environment)
>
> We've had this ready for some time but Its about time we announced it.
> This should help everyone distinguish Between Ladybridge's Commercial
> QM and the OpenSource version.
>
> just new domain available)http://gpl.openqm.comwill continue to function as long as Ladybridge
>
> Changing every name reference is going to take a little while so bear
> with us and the name OpenQM and ScarletDME will be considered
> synonymous until we have tidied up all the loose ends.
>
> This is simply a name change, nothing else. We hope to continue our
> good relations with LadyBridge and will happily share information and
> code. Most of the current services will continue to work as they are
> (Wiki, Subversion, downloads, website, etc). Any significant changes
Tony G
sort of event was bound to happen at some point. One issue that
remains a thorn in the side of anyone doing development on the
GPL project is that LadyBridge can elect to not roll in specific
changes to the commercial base, or simply to re-implement them.
There's nothing wrong with that but I think it creates inherent
forks, where the GPL code has to have ifdefs that say "if this
code is implemented the same way in the commercial code then do
this, else if it's incompatible or non-existent in the commercial
version, do something else". I have no idea about ScarletDME,
though I think it's a kind of cool name, but if it wasn't this
project and now, it seems certain that it would be some other
project later. Might as well duke it out now and set the stage
for the next fork...
Tony Gravagno
Nebula Research and Development
TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com
Steve Bush
I have indeed been trying to keep it as a sandbox but the handful of
committers on the project have got some wind in their sails and they are not
attracted by your submission process. I raised this last point with you some
time ago.
As to the wisdom of the fork, time will tell.
Best Regards,
Steve
Martin Phillips
> One issue that remains a thorn in the side of anyone doing
> development on the GPL project is that LadyBridge can elect
> to not roll in specific changes to the commercial base, or
> simply to re-implement them.
We were always keen to receive contributions and, if they did not conflict
with the general direction in which we want the product to develop, there is
no reason why they would have been rejected. I cannot see us reimplementing
something unless the quality of the submission was not up to our standards.
As has been discussed at great length on this list, the original aim of
collaborative development via the open source didn't seem to tie up at all
with what the developer community wanted to do and we have steadily drifted
apart to the point where they have now decided to go their own way,
effectively cutting ties to the original product. Alhough this is perfectly
legal under the terms of the GPL, I have a feeling that it is in some way
immoral to take what constitutes many years of development work and give
nothing back in return.
Only time will tell whether their venture is sucessful. It seems a shame
that they will need to reimplement all the work that we have done in the
commercial product subsequent to the source version on which they are basing
their fork. The very fact that the project name was chosen "behind closed
doors" seems to suggest that even within the open source community there are
going to be secretive cliques.
So where does this leave us? The open source sandbox version of QM will
remain in existance. Right from the very start we said that this would be
the core multivalue functionality only and was for developers who wanted to
try out ideas for possible submission to the mainstream source code.
Ultimately, our business is the commercial product. It is robust, has a very
attractive price tag and has first class support.
Kevin Powick
> name.
>
> The project and product will now be called Scarlet DME (Data
> Management Environment)
GPL fork of QM and Ladybridge. Other than the obligatory copyright
notice, it seems the intension is to remove all traces of a the
product's origin. I would think this does little for the credibility
of this particular GPL project.
I wonder how much inspiration for the new name was taken from the book
"The Scarlet Letter"?
".... the story of Hester Prynne, who gives birth after committing
adultery and struggles to create a new life of repentance and
dignity..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter
Or maybe the inspiration came from that famous quote from the Dilbert
comic strip, "What colour would you like that database?" Though I
believe the response to that was "mauve", because it had more RAM.
--
Kevin Powick
CDMI - Steve T
To: Ope...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 6:20:37 AM
Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
> Ultimately, our business is the commercial product. It is robust, has a very
> attractive price tag and has first class support.
Martin Phillips
Ladybridge Systems Ltd
17b Coldstream Lane, Hardingstone, Northampton, NN4 6DB
+44-(0)1604-709200
PO Box 13403
Maumelle, AR 72113
(501) 803-0974 09:00am - 6:00pm CST
Steve Bush
sure that the fork will forever describe its history as originating from
OPENQM gpl.
Diccon
distinction. The project had always held back on different names
because of appearing to you to seem to "Break away" which never was
and still is not the community projects intention.
Your mail to the OpenQM-OpenSource Mailing list:
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/openqm-opensource/msg/
341bee1dde04a4b5?hl=en-GB)
>The open source community will need to come up with a new name - perhaps
>just a suffix - for the software. OpenQM is our trade mark that references
>the commercial product and its GPL offshoot. If we get a good volume of
>submittals back to the main source stream, we might even consider a new GPL
>release of our own.
This is absolutely no step away. We have always maintained that we
need the space, tools and freedom to make changes and actually have
them appear in the used product to allow productive development. The
name is just for identity and clarity, as well as avoiding the use
trademark names and logos.
Take a look at the relationship between Centos and RedHat enterprise.
Nothing more than re branding and one or two additional packages
difference in Centos and the fact you can download it without
registering. Redhat have actually told me directly that they actively
encourage the use of Centos. Those that can pay and want commercial
support go to Redhat. If they choose to "freeload" and use Centos they
are more likely to go to Redhat than any of their competitors when
they have Support needs or can afford it, because of Centos. As long
as Centos doesn't use their logos or names. Redhat have even assigned
server time and developer time to the Centos team (One of the Centos
packagers is a friend of mine).
Diccon
distinction. The project had always held back on different names
because of appearing to you to seem to "Break away" which never was
and still is not the community projects intention.
Your mail to the OpenQM-OpenSource Mailing list:
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/openqm-opensource/msg/
341bee1dde04a4b5?hl=en-GB)
>The open source community will need to come up with a new name - perhaps
>just a suffix - for the software. OpenQM is our trade mark that references
>the commercial product and its GPL offshoot. If we get a good volume of
>submittals back to the main source stream, we might even consider a new GPL
>release of our own.
This is absolutely no step away. We have always maintained that we
need the space, tools and freedom to make changes and actually have
On 11 Aug, 12:20, "Martin Phillips" <martinphill...@ladybridge.com>
wrote:
Glen Batchelor
Glen.mobile
RewriteRule ^(garbage|junk)$ /$1 [NC,L]
Martin Phillips
Whatever the project name, I will remain unconvinced that the open source
community has any desire to undertake collaborative development until we see
a significant volume of contributions returned to the mainstream. It will
take real commitment to get us back into trusting the community enough for
us to post the current source code.
Diccon
> that they will need to reimplement all the work that we have done in the
> commercial product subsequent to the source version on which they are basing
> their fork. The very fact that the project name was chosen "behind closed
> doors" seems to suggest that even within the open source community there are
> going to be secretive cliques.
advertised as the place for development and project discussion since
we launched the wiki and the mailing list itself.
In fact the mailing list has fewer restrictions than these google
groups.
I know very few sites that combine their user forums and dev forums
into one. It gets far too confusing with tech speak and puts people
off asking questions.
Again (as per my reply on the OpenSource-OpenQM list) I am sorry to
Eugene, and anyone else who would have wanted a say so in the choice
of name or any of the project decisions and you are welcome to come
join us in productive discussion of the future of Scarlet.
I'm a little saddened if people think this is a move away. We have
simply set ourself's up so we can actually develop the system (Back in
November now). As opposed to before the gpl.openqm.com site where it
was incredibly hard to succeed in developing anything. Let alone for
anyone to use our work. As I said, the name change is for other
reasons than separation. OpenSource software relishes its history, its
ni on impossible not to do so.
-Diccon
Diccon
Ladybridge submissions a long time ago.
What you get back from us is up to you.
-Diccon
ps (Gene, not sure which bit you were replying to there. Can you
clarify?)
On 11 Aug, 17:35, "Martin Phillips" <martinphill...@ladybridge.com>
wrote:
Steve Bush
I strongly believe that the desire was there - but the infrastructure to
accomplish it wasn't. I think you need to initiate a full and frank
discussion here about the possibility of developing some totally new
"submission procedure".
One possible idea for this could be for you to run a public read-only
subversion repo where you grant commit rights to people who sign a bsd-ish
licence to you. People can then choose to work on your repo or the
scarletdme server or BOTH or cross-post diffs. Rule 1 of open source is to
provide what committers think they need.
I will give you a call tomorrow to see if we can thrash anything out.
I am sorry if some of this is repetitive, I am just hoping I am finding some
new angle.
Best Regards,
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ope...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ope...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin Phillips
> To: Ope...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
>
>
Kevin Powick
> What you get back from us is up to you.
existence of your GPL project is due to Martin's contribution in the
first place.
--
Kevin Powick
Ashley Chapman
I guess this signals the end of any type of relationship between the
GPL fork of QM and Ladybridge. Other than the obligatory copyright
notice, it seems the intension is to remove all traces of a the
product's origin. I would think this does little for the credibility
of this particular GPL project.
Well, that's not the intention of the project.
The intent of the project is to allow collaborative development of the Ladybridge GPL release without interfering with Ladybridge's QM development roadmap. The crimson development environment allows for any developer to make any changes they like. It's classic "Bazzar" style development.
For instance, I wish to add multi-server replication engine, which will depend upon Diccon's multi-instance enhancement. This requires a "sandbox" where we can try out these things. Now, Diccon and I could just setup our own development box in my office, but that would exclude others such as Dan, Steve, Gene, Glen etc who would also like to contribute their ideas.
The re-branding exercise has been instigated to make a clear distinction of what we do from what Ladybridge do commercially. We do not want to harm Ladybridge's business in any way, so wish to make it abundantly clear that it does not come from them.
As Martin said on 24 April 2009
"The open source community will need to come up with a new name - perhaps
just a suffix - for the software. OpenQM is our trade mark that references
This is all that we have done.
Ladybridge can take our GPL code as they wish, without any obligation to do so. What's the problem?
I wonder how much inspiration for the new name was taken from the book
"The Scarlet Letter"?
".... the story of Hester Prynne, who gives birth after committing
adultery and struggles to create a new life of repentance and
dignity..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scarlet_Letter
Or maybe the inspiration came from that famous quote from the Dilbert
comic strip, "What colour would you like that database?" Though I
believe the response to that was "mauve", because it had more RAM.
Haha. Like it Kevin
Martin Phillips
- two minor changes to the query processor (one of which turned out to be wrong)
- a change to allow QMBasic source code to be stored in multifiles
- a one line change to the LISTF VOC item
- the Pick style COPYP verb that needed quite a bit of modification
- two PowerPC changes that we had already done
- the account save/restore software that has required extensive work
- the REFORMAT command
- The Proc processor which needed work
Ashley Chapman
Ignoring all the rest for the moment, I resent the allegation of lying...
Ashley's statement "Ladybridge can take our GPL code as they wish, without any obligation to do so" is not true. Yes, we can take it but we cannot use it as it is restricted by the terms of the GPL.
Yes, you can take the code as you wish, as long as you comply with the GPL licencing terms.
Where is the mendacity in that statement?
The fact that it has limited value to you is an issue that you have, and not something that I commented upon.
Martin Phillips
Martin Phillips
I will need to look into just what subversion is all about. If it meets the
needs of both ourselves and the developer community, it is one possible way
forwards.
Steve Bush
I am sure you can draw on lot of support from the community regarding
subversion now that many of us are familiar with it from the gpl/scarlet
server.
The key point is that, while people can sandbox in your subversion
repository by freely creating subversion "branches", you will be free to
pick and choose and diff/merge anything you like back into your core system
which will not be in subversion.
For everybody who is currently using the gpl/scarlet server, I promise to
keep it running and/or pass a copy of the vm to anybody who requests it
until there is a vote among our current committers that harmony has been
restored.
Best Regards, Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ope...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ope...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin Phillips
> Sent: 12 August 2009 14:28
> To: Ope...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
>
>
Martin Phillips
I have yet to look at subversion but an obvious question is can we freely
update the released source without everyone else's projects becoming out of
date?
Martin
Kevin Powick
wrote:
> update the released source without everyone else's projects becoming out of
> date?
Just wondering, is it just that you are not familiar with Subversion
itself, or that you don't use any type of source code control (SCC)
for QM?
I've been using various SCC products for years, starting with Visual
Source Safe (garbage), Perforce, Subversion and a few lesser known
ones along the way. I don't know how anyone could manage their code
without it.
--
Kevin Powick
Martin Phillips
> Just wondering, is it just that you are not familiar with Subversion
> itself, or that you don't use any type of source code control (SCC)
> for QM?
The master source of QM lives on a Windows system. We have our own source
control system that meets our needs.
Steve Bush
repo remain untouched.
The steps are approximately the following:
1. "svn checkout" the "trunk" of the repo down into a folder tree in your
file system. Don't checkout the whole repo.
2. copy/overwrite your new version into the folder tree in your file system.
"svn add" to ensure any new files
3. "svn commit" your folder tree back up into the repo
The concepts are a little confusing at first. The following might help
http://gpl.openqm.com/wiki/HOWTO - although it doesn't explain the concepts
of trunk/branch/tags which can be discovered on Google.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ope...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ope...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Martin Phillips
> Sent: 12 August 2009 15:17
> To: Ope...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
>
>
Ashley Chapman
Sorry for being pedantic, but other people reading these messages
might think that I do not refute allegations of untruths.
>
>
> Martin
> >
>
--
Ashley Chapman
Diccon
of the Current Version systems). Taking two different versions of a
directory structure and file content (eg qmsys dir + sources) then
intelligently puts the newest parts together. When it can't tell which
one it should use, it asks the user what to do.
The project are already running 3 different branches with different
developments being worked on, on Steves public gpl.openqm server. We
merge these into a leading development branch, which is then tested
and upgraded to a stable copy. There are two static copies (aka tags)
that are used for reference (your last Ladybridge submission for
example).
The additional benefits of rolling back changes step by step (you
commit each change at time of the submitters choosing) and annotations
of each change (mandatory by design), let alone other utilities are
incredible.
In my opinion Ladybridge could make excellent use of it internally (ie
just for your developers, no access for us) let alone for the
OpenSource release. By all means test it on us, as ginnie pigs. Most
of the GPL developers are confident with its use. Tom P is the guru on
server setup, config and proper usage. My business certainly uses it
internally for great effect.
Version control is one of the tools which the Project has needed so
badly to be able to carry out serious and successful collaborative
work. Otherwise you only ever get minor fixes like you have been
having.
The other tools, like file storage, Wiki for documentation, organised
mailing lists and official web pages for announcements and live chat
(eg IRC) are vital to ever have a hope of getting anything.
Thanks to Steve we have those now, but it's only been a short while.
-Diccon
On 12 Aug, 12:16, "Martin Phillips" <martinphill...@ladybridge.com>
wrote:
Ashley Chapman
You say:-
>
> To put this in perspective, let's look at where we stand. We have released
> into the public domain the results of several years work totalling (at the
> time) around 185,000 lines of source code.
I was not aware of any such public domain release. Unless you were
referring to the GPL releases you have made.
There is a world of difference between "public domain" and GPL, as I
would expect you to understand, so I'm surprised by the above
statement. Particularly as you require all submissions to be BSD
licensed, rather than GPL.
Sorry if this seems pedantic, but there is a crucial difference. I'm
happy to release my modifications to a GPL project under the same
licence, as this is complementary. I'm not so sure about a BSD
release of my work which has taken many years to develop. Would you
consider a BSD release of QM? I doubt it, so why do you expect other
developers to do so?
Ashley Chapman
Martin Phillips
OK, my wording was perhaps not perfect but the source code is publicly
visible even if you are constrained by the GPL in how you use it.
> I'm happy to release my modifications to a GPL project under
> the same licence, as this is complementary. I'm not so sure
> about a BSD release of my work which has taken many years
> to develop.
Unless I am mistaken, the paragraph above effectively says that you want us
to give you rights to our software under the GPL but don't want to return
anything that can be used in the mainstream commercial product (and would
also be in new GPL releases). The whole point of the OpenQM project was that
we could jointly take multivalue forwards, including a commercial product.
Yes, we make some small gains from your submissions but you gain from ours
and everyone else's.
Steve Bush
might be used something like the this:
1. In his repo, Martin creates/updates the "trunk" from his master code
base.
2. In the his repo, authorised bsd-ish committers freely create/delete and
update branches from the trunk or each other.
3. Public read-only access to the whole repo so non-committers can test the
branches.
4. Martin extracts copies (or diffs) of useful branches from the repo as and
when he chooses and merges these back into his master code base however he
likes.
5. repeat from 1.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ope...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ope...@googlegroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Diccon
> Sent: 12 August 2009 17:29
> To: OpenQM
> Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
>
>
> Martin, Subversion incorporates a feature called Merging (as do most
> of the Current Version systems). Taking two different versions of a
> directory structure and file content (eg qmsys dir + sources) then
> intelligently puts the newest parts together. When it can't tell which
> one it should use, it asks the user what to do.
>
<snip>
Sam Anderson
What annoys Martin is that at least some GPL users have really large actual user counts. It is one thing to provide a free beer to an individual and another to have them take, quite literally, a truck load of it at a time if they are a for-profit entity.
The problem here is that Martin's product works, and there are a lot of people unwilling to pay a reasonable price for support in multi-value. I have known a number of end users who won't spend a dime on their system for ten years and then they want to cry on your shoulder because it's broke and they can't fix it.
I have accordingly recommended to Martin that that he cease GPL efforts, and instead switch to a commercially viable open source model that permits modification and education but prohibits redistribution and use with a larger quantity of users than those actually licensed.
I am dubious that those with the scarlet project will succeed. They seem to think that a machine can replace a human at this level. The success of complex inventions normally requires the willful work of a master designer, or the willfulness and power of an editor aggressively managing the work of many people. I don't think that machines are intelligent enough yet, or creative enough yet, to fulfill that role. Their only chance of succeeding is to develop an extreme testing environment that not only can determine change but also prevents change from entering the system if it causes failure - a highly likely outcome in an uncentralized environment.
-Sam Anderson
Steve Bush
Hi Sam,
In the end I think we all agree that, for whatever reason, Martin has not been satisfied with the quid pro quo i.e. the flow back of source code - but we have identified that it is/was the process which is at fault and we are having a go to make that process easier. I think we setup the gpl.openqm.com with the wrong licence for committers and we are discussing on the scarletdme email group whether, if and how that could be changed from gpl to bsd now.
I see no mention here about the interest created in openqm due to its open source nature. This is the top selling point on the openqm web site I think your argument is rather unbalanced.
The scarletdme project has number of very skilled and determined committers so I don’t see any reason to be sceptical of its future. BTW, none of them wanted the fork initially.
Best Regards,
Steve Bush
From:
Ope...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Ope...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Anderson
Sent: 13 August 2009 22:49
To: Ope...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: New name for GPL OpenQM : Scarlet DME
As the person who persuaded Martin to go the GPL route, I will try to speak to the obvious elements in this case.
Ashley Chapman
A pleasure to see your contributions.
> What annoys Martin is that at least some GPL users have really large actual
> user counts.
This is the first I've heard of this.
Got any evidence of it, or is it just speculation?
> I have accordingly recommended to Martin that that he cease GPL efforts, and
> instead switch to a commercially viable open source model that permits
> modification and education but prohibits redistribution and use with a
> larger quantity of users than those actually licensed.
Thank you Sam. If I understand you correctly, that is precisely what
is required for a client of mine to consider OpenQM. They need to buy
a 400 user licence, but have the full source code. Ideally, they also
need the user count removed, so that disconnected sessions don't lock
out legitimate users.
> I am dubious that those with the scarlet project will succeed. They seem to
> think that a machine can replace a human at this level.
Where are you getting this notion from? I've not seen it in
connection to Scarlet anywhere.
> The success of
> complex inventions normally requires the willful work of a master designer,
> or the willfulness and power of an editor aggressively managing the work of
> many people. I don't think that machines are intelligent enough yet, or
> creative enough yet, to fulfill that role. Their only chance of succeeding
> is to develop an extreme testing environment that not only can determine
> change but also prevents change from entering the system if it causes
> failure - a highly likely outcome in an uncentralized environment.
However, I do agree with your ideas on testing. Wherever possible I
build test systems before I actually write a line of code, and this
method has served me well over the years. And yes, that's in a
distributed environment with developers all over the globe. My
company uses ANT (Java build tool) to build comprehensive testing and
compile environments that prohibit code commits which produce errors.
It's a powerful concept that I would like to be added to Scarlet. It
might be worthwhile suggesting that Ladybridge consider the same for
OpenQM.
Ashley