Topic: twiggi RPM or HOWTO

[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