Topic: twiggi RPM or HOWTO

[Judy Morgann]

Hi all,

some month ago i saw here an RPM oder HOWTO about installing the web-based groupware "twiggi". now i can´t find it again.
somebody can help me?

tia
Judy

[Jeff C]

You can purchase a pre-built rpm from Darrell May at http://www.myezserver.com

I did, I like it.

-jeff

[pkidd]

or go to sourceforge.net/projects/twiggi for a tar file that's easy to install per the documentation

[steve]

Jeff C, could you put a link for the rpm?  I would like to download it.

[Jeff C]

It's commercial software from Darrell May.  I spent the money and found the ease of install and the support I got from Darrell was well worth the small amount of money I spent.

You can get it at www.myezserver.com

Tell Darrell I sent ya :>

-jeff

[Dan Brown]

No, Jeff, it is NOT commercial software, and may not legally be made commercial (in the sense of closed source and limited distribution).  Twiggi is based on TWIG, which is a GPL'd package, and therefore must be GPL'd itself.  Darrell may, if he chooses, only distribute it commercially (that is, only to people who pay him), but he may not legally prevent others from distributing it freely.

Of course, if you pay him, he does provide support, and I'm sure he does a very good job of that.

[Jeff C]

Dan,

You may be right about the licensing.  But you are certainly right about the service.  So I choose to think I got the software for free but got some support bundled into it.

=jeff

[steve]

I have a family of 6 using mine, so the support would be minimal.  I actually have installed the tar as it is easy.  I was just wondering if I could poke around in the rpm and see its install.  Much like esmith the value is in the support, though the product is free

[Mike Sensney]

steve wrote:
>
> I have a family of 6 using mine, so the support would be
> minimal.  I actually have installed the tar as it is easy.  I
> was just wondering if I could poke around in the rpm and see
> its install.  Much like esmith the value is in the support,
> though the product is free

At best this sounds a little cheesy. I would suggest that there may be some non free content in this RPM and that the best course of action is to contact him directly about this.

Darrel May spends a lot of time developing content for E-Smith/Mitel. Much of it is free for download at http://www.myezserver.com/downloads/mitel/. If all you want is to look at how he packages an RPM there are many samples here.

[Mike Sensney]

steve wrote:
>
> I have a family of 6 using mine, so the support would be
> minimal.  I actually have installed the tar as it is easy.  I
> was just wondering if I could poke around in the rpm and see
> its install.  Much like esmith the value is in the support,
> though the product is free

At best this sounds a little cheesy. I would suggest that there may be some non free content in this RPM and that the best course of action is to contact him directly about this.

Darrel May spends a lot of time developing content for E-Smith/Mitel. Much of it is free for download at http://www.myezserver.com/downloads/mitel/. If all you want is to look at how he packages an RPM there are many samples here.

[steve]

No it is GPL, and how my dear sir is it cheesy?

[Mike Sensney]

steve wrote:
> No it is GPL, and how my dear sir is it cheesy?

Twiggi in itself is GPL but neither you nor you do not know if there is some added content in that RPM that is not GPL.

You are willing to ask someone who purchased Darrel's RPM for a copy yet apparently you are not willing to ask Darrel himself for the same RPM. That is cheesy.

As I stated previously, if you are interested in how he packages his RPMs there are many available for download.

[Dan Brown]

Darrell has _requested_ that the RPM not be redistributed, but has nowhere claimed that it contains non-GPL content.  If it did, he could make that request stick; if not (as appears to be the case), he has no way to enforce his will.

I have an idea about how to answer this question, though:  somebody who has Darrell's RPM could run "rpm -qpi [filename of the RPM]" and post the output here.  That would include a statement of the license, which I expect will be GPL.

[Greg Zartman]

Pardon my abrupt statement, but I think some of you folks need to read the GNU license.  www.gnu.org

You can't add a few lines of code to a GNU app and then say that it's commercial software and only offer it to people if they pay you money.  That is a very obvious violation of the license aggrement.  You can, however, make people pay you for a service bundled with a GNU app.  This is how Mitel, for example, gets away with selling an OS that was written by thousands of other developers (i.e. we can download the ISO for free, but must pay for support and all of the really good stuff that they have developed).  This isn't to imply that Mitel hasn't added anything to the Linux project.  The Mitel folks are a excellent group of developers.

I agree with Mike, the fee that Darrell charges for his "Twiggi Bundle" is well worth the cost.  Darrell will have you up and running in no time and can answer just about any question that you'll come up with.

Regards,

Greg Zartman

[Dan Brown]

Greg, I agree with you completely except for one point: Darrell, or I, or you, or anybody else, could refuse to distribute Twiggi (or anything else) to anybody who didn't pay for it (or, put differently, he or you or I could charge whatever we want for it).  However, he _can't_ stop those purchasers from redistributing it at will or modifying it, and he _must_ provide the source code on request.

[steve]

" However, he _can't_ stop those purchasers from redistributing it at will or modifying it, and he _must_ provide the source code on request."


This is why I originally asked jeff c for the rpm, and not d. may, as I dont need the service and support aspect.  This reminds me of the SuSE argument that has been happening for the past few distros because of yast.  They do not provide their ISOs for download anymore, but as soon as one person buys it, then they are entitled to distribute the CDS at their leisure.....

[Greg Zartman]

Dan,

Agreed. If you spend the time to turn source into a binary (RPM), then you are in no way obligated to give it away.

Steve,

I'm not sure if there is a "public" twiggi RPM floating around out there or not.  I know that there is a twiggi GNU project on Source forge.  Maybe you can find something there.  I for one respect Darrell's request not to distribute HIS RPM.  He's put alot of time into packaging this thing for e-smith/SME.  My best advise for you is to either put the time into figuring out twiggi from source forge or pay Darrell for his RPM and the support that comes with it.

Regards,

Greg Zartman

[Jeff C]

I think it boils down to this.  Whether or not it is "legal" for me to redistribute Darrell's RPM, IMHO it is not "moral" for me to do so.

This is a small community.  Darrell (and many others) spend a lot of time building, testing and contributing software that many of us find useful.  If Darrell occasionally wants some reimbursement for his time we are all free to decide whether or not to buy his products.

Twiggi is available as source code elsewhere.  I chose to spend a small sum of money to save my time and you are free to make another choice.

I for one, will honor the work that Darrell put in and not distribute his apps.

License text is all well and good, but let's look at the people situation rather that the tort law.

A little more than 2 cents worth....

-jeff

[Rich Lafferty]

Jeff C wrote:
>
> License text is all well and good, but let's look at the
> people situation rather that the tort law.

Does that include the people that wrote TWIG and chose to
release it under the license you think we should ignore,
or do they not count?

  -Rich

[Dan Brown]

I disagree, Jeff.  Darrell built on the work of others.  He was allowed to do so because of the license under which they released their work, which requires that he release his work, if at all, under the same license.  If he didn't want to abide by that condition, he had other alternatives: (1) contact the authors of TWIG and offer to pay them for a different license; (2) write his own software.

IMO, Darrell's "request" that you not redistribute the RPM violates the spirit of the GPL.  I suppose it doesn't violate the letter, because he's not actually forbidding you to distribute it, but he's attempting to induce you to refrain from exercising a right which he MUST give you.  IOW, he's giving with one hand and taking away with the other.  He has neither a moral nor a legal right to do that.

Again, Darrel isn't required to release code under the GPL.  He's free to write his own software and release it under any license he chooses.  But if he's building on GPL'd software, the resulting work must also be GPL'd.  He chose the latter in the case of Twiggi, so he's stuck with the consequences of that decision.

[Dan G.]

Darrell is only exerting modest control on his .rpm.  I gladly comply with his request not to distribute it, per his request.  If you want TWIG, go for it.  If you want a distribution of Twiggi that is fully self-installing, tested, and customized for SME, *talk* to Darrell.  That's all.  Talk to him.  I doubt he'll be a hardass.  There is some reasonable expectation that people simply communicate with him in regard to this.  After all, the RPM did not create itself, and he at least deserves that bit of recognition.

In this way, he at least has some idea of how many people are using it, and he can judge how reasonable it is for him to put continued effort into future revs.  If he's a smart man, he won't continue creating quality contribs, if he can't get any sense whatsoever of a potential payback.  Unlike many open source contributors the world over, creating freebies on their employers' clock on the sly, I believe Darrell actually makes his living doing these kinds of things.  Open source is great and noble, but there has to be compensation, or you wouldn't have a slick RPM to even be discussing here.  It's pragmatism vs. puritanism, old argument...

[Mike Sensney]

There seems to be a strong feeling among some that Darrel's RPM should be freely distributed even though 1) Darrel has requested that it not be and 2) that it just might contain proprietary, non-GPL coding.

I suggest you create your own twiggi RPM. Then you may distribute it as you choose.

[Greg Zartman]

Mike, Dan, Jeff, I agree with all of you.

One thing to point out is that with GNU software, the source must always be provided.  Doesn't matter if you spend time adding to it or not.

Some of us here have the Twiggi RPM and we could post it on our websites for free download to all.  Point is, Darrell asked us not to.  Like Jeff pointed out, this is a small community.  Unless we have a few folks around here getting paid to help support this thing, it would certainly die.  $65US for Twiggi is not alot considering it would take me several hours to figure out the sources on my own.  Considering my bill out rate, I'm saving my company about $200-$300 by purchasing Darrell's RPM.

Greg

[Scott Smith]

Disclaimer: IANAL

Darrell is obligated to provide the source WHEN ASKED and he may charge a reasonable media fee. He is not required to post it in some public place nor to make it available at no cost. The GPL is about the free exchange of knowledge, not about the free (as in no cost) acquisition of software. The fact that most GPL stuff is free of charge is a blessing to us all, but it is not a requirement of the GPL.

Any of you who have purchased or obtained it are under no obligation to pass it along to anyone. Unless you create your own fork, you can merrily refer everyone back to Darrell if they want a copy. But, you are also free to pass it along if you want, since there is nothing that allows Darrell to prohibit redistribution.

To avoid this confusion and likely hard feelings, perhaps Darrell should have taken the route of creating a separate system that would install over a stock TWIG installation. Provided he did not use GPL code (ie, his overlays were original works and not derivatives) he could license it however he wanted, prevented any redistribution whatsoever, and charged whatever he wanted.

Scott

[Darrell May]

Greetings everyone.  Anyone on devinfo may understand I have been busy lately.  Unfortunately only moments ago was I informed this thread was ongoing.  I guess no one thought to ask the me directly?

Twiggi started life over a year ago based on twig.  During the last year twiggi has become a comple code rewrite and now is no longer linked to the current twig development branch.

In support of open-source and to meet our obligations under twig's GPL license and with the blessing of the twig development team, we release all changes we make to the twig code for all to see.  This is available at our project hosted on SourceForge where the twiggi code is available for anyone to download and use:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/twiggi/

Our rpm build for the Mitel SME Server, which includes our copyrighted code, is not offered public.  We offer this commercially and include up to one hour of support.  As our support costs are $95.00/hr CAD, we offer the software for $95.00.

This costs is to handle any installation support issue you may encounter and assists us, in a very small way, in funding our continued development on this exciting project.

In summary, the twiggi code is freely available via SourceForge.  Our copyright code is not.

I have requested that our rpm, which includes our copyright code, not be distributed.  I am simply executing my right to protect my copyright code.  I trust this clears up any confusion.

As always, anyone wishing to discuss any of my products and services may do so by e-mailing me directly.  Feedback and comments from clients and potential clients are always welcomed.

I also want to take this moment to thank those in this thread, that are registered twiggi resellers, twiggi users and as such are all clients of mine.  Thank you for expressing your viewpoints and positive comments on the support we provide to registered resellers and users.  All our clients are very important to us.  It is a exceptional to see threads like this where my clients are coming to my support.  Thank you very much.

Regards,

Darrell May
DMC Netsourced.com

[Damien Curtain]

Mike Sensney wrote:
>
> There seems to be a strong feeling among some that Darrel's
> RPM should be freely distributed even though 1) Darrel has
> requested that it not be and 2) that it just might contain
> proprietary, non-GPL coding.
>
> I suggest you create your own twiggi RPM. Then you may
> distribute it as you choose.

Good point. Its pretty trivial to package something like twiggi up in an rpm. I rolled a twig rpm when it first surfaced long before anything like webmail was included in e-smith, and it didnt take long.

Aswell as another package that drops in support for the templated system which would include a templated /etc/twiggi.conf file and supported actions for a conf intall/upgrade etc that registers a twiggi service, and youd probably want to fix the couple of shell scripts called each time a user is added as they use relative locs, and then have an even each time a user is added to the system to run the twiggi configure script.

Any takers or would you like me to do it?
--
 Damien

[stephen noble]

>Any takers or would you like me to do it?

ok Damien,

but before you reinvent the wheel can you bundle up a RPM and instructions for
phpgroupware,
sgml, software to turn the sgml into text/html as per mitel standards
phorum/phpBB,
http://www.compiere.org/home/whatitdoes.html
a dial in server,
VPN,
port forwarding,
log analysis (email me for details on this one),

suggestions anyone ?

and then
*debug the rpms and keep them updated when either sme or the base package changes,
*report and fix bugs or suggest improvements to the base package,
*enhance your rpms when users make requests
*hold hands when users don't understand

regards
stephen

[Damien Curtain]

stephen noble wrote:
>
> >Any takers or would you like me to do it?
>
> ok Damien,
>
> but before you reinvent the wheel can you bundle up a RPM and
> instructions for
> phpgroupware,
> sgml, software to turn the sgml into text/html as per mitel
> standards
> phorum/phpBB,
> http://www.compiere.org/home/whatitdoes.html
> a dial in server,
> VPN,
> port forwarding,
> log analysis (email me for details on this one),
>
> suggestions anyone ?
>
> and then
> *debug the rpms and keep them updated when either sme or the
> base package changes,
> *report and fix bugs or suggest improvements to the base
> package,
> *enhance your rpms when users make requests
> *hold hands when users don't understand

Hi Stephen,

Im not sure what point your trying to raise here. But I feel if people would like to utlilise a gpl'd package on e-smith/mitel's server and require an rpm of that particular piece of software, and ones not available, that I or anyone else is at liberty to package it up as a benefit to the end users who wish to use the software.

Alot of people do not require assistance using/admining a system but would prefer to utilise the redhat package management system for ease of maintainance and accounting purposes, I for one enjoy rpm and dpkg for these types of purposes so I can clearly view installation status of software on any system I manage.

Its not reinventing the wheel, where does that analogy fit in to this thread?

The GPL exempts the asterix points you listed, right? Sections 11 and 12.
--
 Damien

[Rob Hillis]

Dan Brown wrote:

> I disagree, Jeff.  Darrell built on the work of others.  He
> was allowed to do so because of the license under which they
> released their work, which requires that he release his work,
> if at all, under the same license.  If he didn't want to
> abide by that condition, he had other alternatives: (1)
> contact the authors of TWIG and offer to pay them for a
> different license; (2) write his own software.

Darrell is complying fully with the GPL licence.  The software is available for free *with* source code, and it is also licenced as GPL software.

There is *nothing* in the GPL license to say that he *must* release *every* package of the software created.  The source is out there... go get it.  If you can find someone with the RPM Darrell created and they give it to you, good for you.  Darrell *requested* this particular package of TWIGGI not be publically distributed - he did *NOT* require it.

How would you react to the people putting together Lindows?  They're building on an Open Source operating system, and adding some proprietory/closed source code to it, and you *must* buy Lindows from them in order for it to be fully operational.  Mitel, for that matter, has added Service Link to SMEv5 - closed source code on top of open source.

> IMO, Darrell's "request" that you not redistribute the RPM
> violates the spirit of the GPL.  I suppose it doesn't violate
> the letter, because he's not actually forbidding you to
> distribute it, but he's attempting to induce you to refrain
> from exercising a right which he MUST give you.  IOW, he's
> giving with one hand and taking away with the other.  He has
> neither a moral nor a legal right to do that.

Not true.  TWIGGI is available in source form, as required.  Point out the clause in the GPL where it says that binaries or other packaged varieties of the *same* version of the software *must* be distributed.

I doubt you'll find it.

> Again, Darrel isn't required to release code under the GPL.
> He's free to write his own software and release it under any
> license he chooses.  But if he's building on GPL'd software,
> the resulting work must also be GPL'd.  He chose the latter
> in the case of Twiggi, so he's stuck with the consequences of
> that decision.

TWIGGI *is* GPL'ed.  That's what it comes down to.  What you're talking about is a custom package of the same sofware.  Different kettle of fish altogether.

(on another, totally unrelated question, where the hell did the expression "different kettle of fish" come from anyway?)

[stephen noble]

hello damien

> Im not sure what point your trying to raise here.

you can make a rpm of the gpl'd program, agreed
and i detest .tar packages as well

the difficult part is tieing the program into mitel
this is where the value of darrells rpm is, and is the part that is non gpl
i don't think it is trivial to make these tie in rpms, there aren't many around

>reinventing the wheel

the rpm already exists for twiggi,
they don't for the other suggestions  
if you have the time to make the rpm for twiggi, i would like to see rpms for the others too, i don't have time and you probably don't either

if we have to pay to have them built so be it, and if the author can't devise a method to legitimately receive payment then we'll continue with the current method of only the geeks being able to expand on the base sme server

>The GPL exempts the asterix points you listed, right?
yes, but then you'll soon have another orphaned rpm nobody wants

regards
stephen

[Damien Curtain]

Hey Stephen,

> the difficult part is tieing the program into mitel
> this is where the value of darrells rpm is, and is the part
> that is non gpl
> i don't think it is trivial to make these tie in rpms, there
> aren't many around

Ah I just made this part then, wasnt too difficult. Ive only tested it on a version 5.0 and 5.1 so far, ill see that it works correctly on a 4.1.x tomorrow and see what the current naming/numbering convention is for contrib packages before sending them into mitel to be hosted.

> >reinventing the wheel
>
> the rpm already exists for twiggi,
> they don't for the other suggestions  
> if you have the time to make the rpm for twiggi, i would like
> to see rpms for the others too, i don't have time and you
> probably don't either

True, but I wanted to play with twiggi and I didnt have a copy of that particular rpm. I actually hadnt looked at any groupware apps in a long time and I like the current version of twig/twiggi atm, and feel a few of the non profit groups I help out on occasions may benefit from using such a tool, thats my only motivation for getting this packaged.

> if we have to pay to have them built so be it, and if the
> author can't devise a method to legitimately receive payment
> then we'll continue with the current method of only the geeks
> being able to expand on the base sme server

True, rolling rpms is not within everyones grasp, although the doco Charlie and others have put out there (dont quote me on it ive never read it;) surely would be a good hint for most people keen on building packages for mitel.

No one can rely on mitel to provide every package concivable, even if they had the resources, theyre a business and im sure are influenced by marketing/sales strategies as to what they include and what they feel has been adequately tested.

> >The GPL exempts the asterix points you listed, right?
> yes, but then you'll soon have another orphaned rpm nobody
> wants

True, no one wants that. But the rpms i just made require only the installation of twiggi, e-smith-twiggi, and then running 2 events once enabling twiggi over standard or ssl connections. Its much easier maintaining rpms than creating them from scratch, perhaps some people keen on getting involved in that should step forward.

Id encourage anyone wishing to have a supported package fund someone such as mitel, or donate some money/beer/pizza to a developer/developers charity of choice to get something youd like bundled up and made available for yourself and the rest of the community.

Cheers
--
 Damien

[stephen noble]

nice work Damien

you've just killed this debate

i hope you haven't killed off more development of twiggi
or similar projects



stephen

[Dan Brown]

Rob Hillis wrote:

> There is *nothing* in the GPL license to say that he *must*
> release *every* package of the software created.  The source

    That's correct, as I've posted myself.  He isn't obligated to distribute anything (except source code to what he does distribute--which is somewhat of a moot point in the case of a PHP web app).

> > IMO, Darrell's "request" that you not redistribute the RPM
> > violates the spirit of the GPL.  I suppose it doesn't violate
> > the letter, because he's not actually forbidding you to
> > distribute it, but he's attempting to induce you to refrain
> > from exercising a right which he MUST give you.  IOW, he's
> > giving with one hand and taking away with the other.  He has
> > neither a moral nor a legal right to do that.
>
> Not true.  TWIGGI is available in source form, as required.
> Point out the clause in the GPL where it says that binaries
> or other packaged varieties of the *same* version of the
> software *must* be distributed.

    I'm including my entire paragraph above because it seems you didn't read it the first time.  First, if you read it this time, you'll observe that I say Darrell's request probably _doesn't_ violate the letter of the GPL.  Second, you'll observe that I take no issue with his decision to not distribute the RPM freely--he's perfectly within his rights to restrict *his* distribution of the RPM however he chooses.  My beef is with his "request" that recipients of the RPM from him not exercise their rights under paragraph 3 of the GPL (presuming that the RPM is released under the GPL).

    In his response on this thread, Darrell mentions that the RPM contains copyrighted code, which is irrelevant--all GPL'd code is copyrighted.  If there is code in the RPM which is not GPL'd (and is not required to be), then Darrell has the right to restrict its *re*distribution however he chooses--and in that case, we would all be better served if he'd simply say that redistribution of the RPM is prohibited, rather than to "request" that it not be redistributed (if that is in fact what he wants).  To further avoid confusion, it'd be better if twiggi were one RPM and his proprietary code were another.  Consider this language from paragraph 2 of the GPL:

If identifiable sections of that [modified--e.g., twiggi] work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections **when you distribute them as separate works**. But when you distribute the same sections **as part of a whole** which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

    (Emphasis added).  It looks as though this would require Darrell's new "copyrighted code" to be distributed under the GPL, as it's distributed as part of a whole (the RPM) which is a work based on the Program (TWIG in this case).

[Tom Keiser]

I've been lurking and not contributing to this thread because I'm not much of a developer. But, I do follow this list to see what's new and what's available, and as anyone can see, Darrell May is a mother-lode of resources, how-to's and add-ons for ESSG and SME.

Secondly, I'm old enough to know that some things you may legally do are not necessarily smart or self-serving to do. While I won't discuss the legality of your trying to create a free version of something Darrell charges for, I will state that posting it to the Mitel site is very much a disservice for the entire community. It means there will now be two competing versions of Twig for SME -- one with a sticker price, a year's worth of experience and customer support, and one without any of that. It also means that there will be less incentive for folks like Darrell to invent new products with the hope of earning a living from them.

Others have probably said it better, but I am disgusted with that piece of the open-source culture that says it "must be free as in free beer". I think it's way past time we all grew out of the stage where we refuse to pay a reasonable sum for a good product.

Regards,

Tom Keiser

[Edward]

I believe Darrell has contributed a lot to the community and deserves to charge for his work.

On the other hand, I think having competing rmps for twiggi
is a good thing.
Otherwise it would be a bad thing that there are competing
distributions of Linux (RedHat, SUSE, ...).  Is having
twig and twiggi a bad thing?

GNU was all about choice and encouraging choice.  Otherwise
everyone who is using the VPN Howto should stop using it
and sign up for ServiceLink to "help" and "encourage"
Mitel to keep up the good work as well as having a
single way to do VPN.

Like may of you said, you may save more money by using
Darrell's rpm.  But if someone else decides to make a
free one, why discourage it.  Let the product stand on
it's own.  If people find out that the free one is not
as good as Darrell's then it will just die.

BTW, If we take this line of thought about the RPM packaging
of the scripts being non GPL, then can't mitel now release
ALL it's new packages as purchase only?  Just a thought...

Sincerly,
Edward

[Rob Hillis]

Dan Brown wrote:

> > Not true.  TWIGGI is available in source form, as required.
> > Point out the clause in the GPL where it says that binaries
> > or other packaged varieties of the *same* version of the
> > software *must* be distributed.
>     I'm including my entire paragraph above because it seems
> you didn't read it the first time.  First, if you read it
> this time, you'll observe that I say Darrell's request
> probably _doesn't_ violate the letter of the GPL.  Second,
> you'll observe that I take no issue with his decision to not
> distribute the RPM freely--he's perfectly within his rights
> to restrict *his* distribution of the RPM however he
> chooses.  My beef is with his "request" that recipients of
> the RPM from him not exercise their rights under paragraph 3
> of the GPL (presuming that the RPM is released under the GPL).

Even assuming that Darrell's RPMs include no proprietory code at all, I still feel that Darrell is doing *everything* the GPL requires (or requests) him to do.  I don't think he's violating the spirit of the GPL as he *has* made the program source available, as required.  Maybe he has no legal right to require his RPM not to be distributed (and even here, I'd dispute that) but he's not even doing that.

It all comes down to this - Darrell is trying to protect his investment of time (on his company's time) in the custom packaging of this program.  If we *don't* allow people to do this, then *any* commercial involvement in GPL software will die in the end - people *have* to make a living.  That would be a *very* bad thing - especially in Darrell's case, due to the sheer volume of development and improvment work he does on SME.

>     In his response on this thread, Darrell mentions that the
> RPM contains copyrighted code, which is irrelevant--all GPL'd
> code is copyrighted.  If there is code in the RPM which is
> not GPL'd (and is not required to be), then Darrell has the
> right to restrict its *re*distribution however he
> chooses--and in that case, we would all be better served if
> he'd simply say that redistribution of the RPM is prohibited,
> rather than to "request" that it not be redistributed (if
> that is in fact what he wants).  To further avoid confusion,
> it'd be better if twiggi were one RPM and his proprietary
> code were another.

Possibly "copyrighted" code was the wrong phrase for Darrell to use - perhaps "proprietory" would have been better.

Even so, nitpicking over such minor things as this is, in the long run, only going to do more harm than good.  In any case, I think that there are far "worse" "offenders" at this than Darrell - projects such as Lindows that build a proprietory top on top of a GPL base, and say that they intend sell the end product under a license other than the GPL.  Even projects such as SuSE which no longer offer a downloaded version of the program, and will only sell their OS... which you are then free to redistribute... I think *that's* more of a violation of the spirit of the GPL than what Darrell is doing.

[Darrell May]

As I attempt to end this thread... I would like to again take a moment to thank those that are supporting my efforts to make a living and build a thriving business.  Thank you!

Let me be clear.  In the spirit of open source I welcome anyone to use our publically released code.  Simply visit http://sourceforge.net/projects/twiggi/ to get your copy.

If anyone wants to take this code and build it into an rpm for others, please do so at your convenience.  If you want to offer your own support, for your rpm'd version, please do so.  You have my full blessing to proceed in any way you deem appropriate with our publicly released code.

My target market is corporate clients.  This market requires commercial support and my goal is to provide supported products to corporate clients.  For those that wish my expertise and commercial support, simply visit my website, e-mail or call me directly.

Regards,

Darrell May