General discussion of OpenCATS

Moderators: RussH, cptr13

Forum rules: Just remember to play nicely once you walk through the door. You can disagree with us, or any other commenters in this forum, but keep comments directed to the topic at hand.
By skwdenyer
#142
asimbaig wrote:
I made a lot of changes to 0.7.1, and then re-integrated them with 0.8.0.....
Silas,

Please read CPL section 3.2 Availability of Source Code
Yes, have read it several times.
asimbaig wrote:The heart of CPL is the requirement that modifications of the original or modified CPL code must be released under CPL.
With respect, the CPL, based in turn on the MPL, does not require me to do this. I am not distributing a modified version of CATS, or otherwise making it available. I do not have a career portal or any other public-facing element of modified version of CATS (I did have a career portal running against a vanilla version of CATS with nothing in it to see if anyone ever tried to hack into it). I am not making modified CATS available to anybody other than me and my company (which are a single entity) to use. I am therefore not, according to my understanding of the CPL, doing anything which would require me to make available my code changes.

Many of the changes we made were to improve the functionality of CATS in general. A great many of the subsequent changes we made were to integrate CATS with proprietary (either to us or to third parties) software or to customise it to our specific needs and existing datastores. The next stage of our development was to transition the majority of our other applications to open source equivalents. These include workflow, ERP, BPM, and so on. When that work is complete I don't see any problem in releasing the modified CPL-covered code for others to use, since I think it would be useful. Some other things might be released as modules, since they include GPL code or our own code which we'd probably prefer to release under a different licence. I don't know if just the early stuff still exists in the sense of being able to separate it out from the current stuff.

I agree with you about the heart of the CPL. When the code we've got running does something useful to anybody not using our proprietary systems and does not include things we're not allowed to publish (and, yes, for historical contractual reasons some of our in-house apps are not redistributable, nor are their APIs publishable, which is why I want to move to open source alternatives) then, as stated, I'll happily release the code for anybody to use. I'm happy to be held to that obligation, and I'll announce it here.
asimbaig wrote:I have noted your comments here and have added you to the list of people who have moded CATS. I expect you to please post all your modifications on your website or this forum. Everyone should have access to this code for free.
Thank you for doing that, but as I said I really have never been looking for recognition, and I wasn't accusing you of shirking any responsibility in that regard.

As to modifications, please see above. Once the changes are refactored to link CATS to things other people have access to, and when they don't include things we're not allowed to publish, I'll happily do that. It may take a few months, but it will definitely happen.
asimbaig wrote:Failure to do so immediately, will be a violation of CPL and MPL in general. We need to see all your modifications to CATS available as a zip or tar file easily available on your website. I will appreciate that you follow legality and spirit of open source in general and our license in particular. This will also set an example for others to follow.
With respect, this is where we're going to fall out. I see nothing in the CPL that requires me to make any modified version of the code that I use internally available. The spirit of open source is one I'm happy with, and I've already made a committment to release code. I'll refer you to clause 3.2 which you reference:
CPL wrote:3.2. Availability of Source Code.

Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
I've added emphasis. Since I am not making an executable version available to anybody, 3.2 does not require me to release the code.
asimbaig wrote:My team is monitoring http://www.internationalsearchandrescue.com/ and http://www.turns.net for updated CATS code. Also kindly make sure that the modified CATS code is posted in its entirety and not in patches/snipppets.
Oh dear, Asim. Not many hours ago you posted that you were having difficulty paying your team, now they have time to monitor websites? I am not violating either the letter or the spirit of the CPL. In fact I have publically committed to going much further than I'm legally required to do in terms of releasing internal code. What seems to be your approach here is exactly what large companies have always been afraid of with open source - that they'd have to release everything they did internally.

Unfortunately you've now deleted the CATSONE forums in which this position was clarified for everybody by your own people. However for a more general analysis of the MPL (upon which the CPL is based and from which the clause in question comes in its entirety) I'd have to refer you to my own lawyer (who will charge you for his advice)! However here's what I understand to be the situation. A distribution is interpreted generally as providing a copy, by any physical or electronic means, to a third party. Under the MPL, users within a licensee's company or organisation are not third parties. Therefore if covered software or any changes to it are only distributed to ourselves, source code does not need to be disclosed.

If you have a different interpretation of the CPL, now would be an excellent time to air it and open the discussion.

Best wishes, Silas

It's essential to keep these synchronized to ensur[…]

Export part in Job Order order search

Same problem as mine. Maybe you're right, I'll che[…]

The error message you're encountering indicates th[…]

Errors restoring mysqldump backup

doesnot work for me