matthias/mayan-edms
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Second GPL update

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Roberto Rosario
2012-08-28 19:48:54 -04:00
parent e6750d3777
commit b1c573dbcf
3 changed files with 19 additions and 7 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
gpl.html
View File

@@ -59,13 +59,7 @@
<div class="wrap">
<ul class="piramid_bullets support">
<li>
<h3><span class="red">Kratos 0.12.3</span></h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3><span class="red">magicDocs</span></h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3><span class="red">DocuManager</span></h3>
<h3><span class="red">None so far</span></h3>
</li>
</ul>
</div>

4
index.html
View File

@@ -157,6 +157,10 @@
<div class="col last">
<h3>Latest <span class="red">news</span></h3>
<ul class="news" style="margin-bottom: 3em;">
<li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">
<h4><span class="red">August 28, 2012</span></h4>
<div style="font-size: 10px;"><h4>GPL violations, second (and hopefully final) update.</h4><a href="news.html#20120828">Read more</a></div>
</li>
<li style="margin-bottom: 1em;">
<h4><span class="red">August 28, 2012</span></h4>
<div style="font-size: 10px;"><h4>GPL violations, update.</h4><a href="news.html#20120828">Read more</a></div>

14
news.html
View File

@@ -96,6 +96,20 @@
<div class="wrap">
<ul class="piramid_bullets news">
<li>
<a href="#20120828"><h3><span class="red">August 28, 2012</span></h3></a>
<h4>GPL violations, second (and hopefully final) update</h4>
<p>The <strong>DMS</strong> market is a very big revenue market, there are just few but big players, now do the math. <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> was never very well received into this market, from it's <strong>Wikipedia</strong> article being erased to its entries being removed from <strong>open source DMS software directories</strong> and press releases being sometimes ignored, I'm used to this kind of situation, such is life, this is not a tantrum.</p>
<p>I have a full time day job and <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> provides some side income by means of my own startup (<a href="http://documen.to">Documen.to</a>), I'm have been well aware that from the beginning people would make money from it, a lot more than me too. Even the stand alone consultants are probably doing more money than me and the corporations are most certainly doing a lot more, so, as I said that doesn't bother me in fact it is something that has been promoted from day one. Some people are doing consulting (<a href="http://quintagroup.com/">Quinta Group</a>), others are doing service level agreements, others are doing cloud deployments (<a href="http://appsembler.com">Appsembler</a>), others selling turn-key solutions integrating <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> with scanning and printing equipment, others want to sell repackaged versions of <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> (<a href="http://www.jtpnet.com/">JTP</a>) others are selling document appliances (<a href="http://www.rtm-it.com">RTM-IT</a>). All that doesn't bothers me in fact I feel proud my software and the choice of license I use is creating commercial opportunities for so many.</p>
<p>This is also not an issue of the <strong>GPL</strong> being defective, or about me not reading or applying the <strong>GPL</strong> incorrectly, and certainly not about <strong>GPL</strong> vs. <strong>BSD</strong> vs. <strong>MIT</strong> vs. <strong>Apache</strong>, etc. While I do appreciate the suggestions about the license change, I will stick with the <strong>GPL</strong>. The <strong>GPL</strong> is not complicated, its basic premise is actually simple: you get software with certain freedoms, you can do whatever you want with it as long as those freedoms remain unchanged.</p>
<p>If you look at the changelog, there have been <strong>20</strong> releases so far in about a year and a half, please point out where in my past communications I have said I intend to change the licenses of all those previous releases or the license of the current release. The <strong>GPL</strong> actually doesn't allows that, it protects the code itself from everybody including from myself. If I were to stop working on <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong>, anyone can continue working and releasing new versions, and that is the beauty of it. That is something that doesn't happens with commercial software, in the commercial setting when the company decides the product is dead, it is dead and there is nothing the end users can do about it.</p>
<p>Some action is better than no action, restricting access to the development branch has been criticized, but it is managing to weed out non compliance and sending a message of the seriousness with which the <strong>GPL</strong>, the copyright issues and the contributions of the community are being taken. The community has been supportive of this decision as they understand what is at stake and the reasons behind it.</p>
<p>If the development were to continue behind doors, that is not a <strong>GPL</strong> violation, the <strong>GPL</strong> doesn't dictate development procedure, so development can be done with limited access and when ready, released and it will still be valid <strong>Free</strong> and <strong>Open Source software</strong>.</p>
<p>I don't mind people charging for their services in relation to <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> or for <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong> itself, within the terms of the <strong>GPL</strong> it can be resold for a reasonable fee, in the same way I can download <strong>Ubuntu</strong>, burn a CD and charge a percent over the costs of the CD and the cost of the download, that same situation is allowed for <strong>Mayan EDMS</strong>. Reasonable is open to interpretation but $999.00 per seat license is not a reasonable fee if your are also changing copyrights, not releasing the source code and marketing it as an original product. That is callous, it is a copyright infringement and a <strong>GPL</strong> infringement.</p>
<p>Given the amount of flame I've gotten in my inbox for this I'm reassured that not releasing the information of the non compliant products was the best course of action and a decision that eventually led to the resolution of this issue. I cannot however, guarantee that will be the case in the future.</p>
<p>Finally, I am very happy to inform that 2 of the original non compliant products as well as 37 individuals (!?!?) have come forward with the intent to comply with the <strong>GPL</strong> or reach some kind of licensing agreement.</p>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#20120828"><h3><span class="red">August 28, 2012</span></h3></a>
<h4>GPL violations, update</h4>