Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

nicomo
Hello everyone,
Following the thread on Library Journal's article "LibLime's
Enterprise Koha Sets Off Debate"
(http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6700348.html) we at BibLibre
posted an article on our web site about this issue:
http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss
Cheers,
Nicolas

--
Nicolas Morin
Mobile: +33(0)633 19 11 36
http://www.biblibre.com
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

MJ Ray-2
Nicolas Morin <[hidden email]>
> [...] we at BibLibre
> posted an article on our web site about this issue:
> http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss

Amongst other things, that says:

  "BibLibre decided we needed to modify our standard hosting contract
  to close the GPL loophole used by LibLime: in our future contracts,
  and when the current contracts are renewed, an extra article is
  added to the contract which specifies that even though the software
  is hosted, the library has access to the source code, GPLed."

I'm surprised because software.coop's usual contract terms have said
that we "grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission" since at
least 2006 and probably before (I'd need to check paper files to be
sure).

For Koha, that means you get a copy under the GPL, basically.

What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't
expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise
already.  So - would the other vendors like to state their current
contract permissions?  Anyone else want to follow the co-op and
BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?

Also, I'd like to know whether anyone else's hosting-source-access
clause forbids evil tricks like public key encryption?  Offering
access alone isn't sufficient.  Also, what about the data?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Chris Cormack-6
2009/10/23 MJ Ray <[hidden email]>:

> Nicolas Morin <[hidden email]>
>> [...] we at BibLibre
>> posted an article on our web site about this issue:
>> http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss
>
> Amongst other things, that says:
>
>  "BibLibre decided we needed to modify our standard hosting contract
>  to close the GPL loophole used by LibLime: in our future contracts,
>  and when the current contracts are renewed, an extra article is
>  added to the contract which specifies that even though the software
>  is hosted, the library has access to the source code, GPLed."
>
> I'm surprised because software.coop's usual contract terms have said
> that we "grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
> enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
> far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission" since at
> least 2006 and probably before (I'd need to check paper files to be
> sure).
>
> For Koha, that means you get a copy under the GPL, basically.
>
> What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't
> expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise
> already.  So - would the other vendors like to state their current
> contract permissions?  Anyone else want to follow the co-op and
> BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?
>
> Also, I'd like to know whether anyone else's hosting-source-access
> clause forbids evil tricks like public key encryption?  Offering
> access alone isn't sufficient.  Also, what about the data?
>
As far as Im aware Liblime is the only vendor in the history of Koha,
certainly the only vendor listed on the Koha support page, to refuse
to give the source code, and database access to their customers.
For me thats where the flames are coming from.
I will find out what the Catalyst contracts say, but we don't have and
Software as a Service Koha clients, they are all self hosted. But I
will look just for curiosity sake.

Chris
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Kyle Hall
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a requirement for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to alter the terms of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org ( assuming we have and will have that much control over it ). I would expect that we would have to grandfather all current vendors though.

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
Information Technology
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )



On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nicolas Morin <[hidden email]>
> [...] we at BibLibre
> posted an article on our web site about this issue:
> http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss

Amongst other things, that says:

 "BibLibre decided we needed to modify our standard hosting contract
 to close the GPL loophole used by LibLime: in our future contracts,
 and when the current contracts are renewed, an extra article is
 added to the contract which specifies that even though the software
 is hosted, the library has access to the source code, GPLed."

I'm surprised because software.coop's usual contract terms have said
that we "grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission" since at
least 2006 and probably before (I'd need to check paper files to be
sure).

For Koha, that means you get a copy under the GPL, basically.

What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't
expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise
already.  So - would the other vendors like to state their current
contract permissions?  Anyone else want to follow the co-op and
BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?

Also, I'd like to know whether anyone else's hosting-source-access
clause forbids evil tricks like public key encryption?  Offering
access alone isn't sufficient.  Also, what about the data?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Thomas Dukleth-3
Reply inline:

On Thu, October 22, 2009 19:53, Kyle Hall wrote:
> Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a
> requirement
> for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to alter the
> terms
> of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org ( assuming we have and
> will have that much control over it ). I would expect that we would have
> to
> grandfather all current vendors though.

I respond at the risk of great controversy but we have already seen what
trouble grandfathered treatment has caused in the Koha community and we
should be more careful in future.

[Please remember to be calm, civil, and respectful in any replies.]

There are altogether too many exclusionary rules already for being listed
on the 'pay for support' page .  There may even be legal hazard from any
possible mishap with a litigious library for certifying competence in a
world of human frailty if the Koha community might be understood to
function as a trade association in some legal jurisdictions which had
certified the qualifications of some members.

I presume we are now moving away from a process where one support company
or a small group of support companies would exercise exclusive control
over what appears on the community website.

I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the
community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding
listing support service companies in the past year.  I am not recommending
such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.

The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
anyone from the rules.  Any rules worth having are rules which should be
applied equally to all.


Thomas Dukleth
Agogme
109 E 9th Street, 3D
New York, NY  10003
USA
http://www.agogme.com
+1 212-674-3783



_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Chris Cormack-7
* Thomas Dukleth ([hidden email]) wrote:

> Reply inline:
>
> On Thu, October 22, 2009 19:53, Kyle Hall wrote:
> > Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a
> > requirement
> > for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to alter the
> > terms
> > of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org ( assuming we have and
> > will have that much control over it ). I would expect that we would have
> > to
> > grandfather all current vendors though.
>
> I respond at the risk of great controversy but we have already seen what
> trouble grandfathered treatment has caused in the Koha community and we
> should be more careful in future.
>
> [Please remember to be calm, civil, and respectful in any replies.]
>
> There are altogether too many exclusionary rules already for being listed
> on the 'pay for support' page .  There may even be legal hazard from any
> possible mishap with a litigious library for certifying competence in a
> world of human frailty if the Koha community might be understood to
> function as a trade association in some legal jurisdictions which had
> certified the qualifications of some members.
>
> I presume we are now moving away from a process where one support company
> or a small group of support companies would exercise exclusive control
> over what appears on the community website.
>
> I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the
> community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding
> listing support service companies in the past year.  I am not recommending
> such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.
>
> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
> anyone from the rules.  Any rules worth having are rules which should be
> applied equally to all.
>
>
Hear Hear!

I would much prefer we list all those who apply, with no judgement or
order inferred, than the current mess.
And that whatever rules there are, are applied equally to all.

Chris

--
Chris Cormack
Catalyst IT Ltd.
+64 4 803 2238
PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Mason James-5
>>
>> I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the
>> community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come  
>> regarding
>> listing support service companies in the past year.  I am not  
>> recommending
>> such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.
>>
> Hear Hear!
>
> I would much prefer we list all those who apply, with no judgement or
> order inferred, than the current mess.

> And that whatever rules there are, are applied equally to all.

yep, i agree

or as others on the koha-lists have asked - order the support-
companies *alphabetically* as Katipo did originally,
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

paul POULAIN-3
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
MJ Ray a écrit :
> What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't
> expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise
> already.  So - would the other vendors like to state their current
> contract permissions?  Anyone else want to follow the co-op and
> BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?
>  
If the contract says nothing about providing source to *hosted* client
there is a loophole.
Because GPL + SaaS + specific code + unreleased code is legal (well, no
one objected anything. And maybe we could/should investigate if it's
really legal. But I think so)
So instead of saying nothing we decided to *explicitly* exclude this
possibility. We never planned to do that (ie: fork a non open-source
version), but with updated contracts, we contractualy exclude this
possibility. And, you know, what is written in a contract can't be
discussed. What is not written can. Now it's written for BibLibre, our
clients are protected. No changes in the promises, just changes in the
contracts.

In your contract, you say it's written : "

grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission"

but... in a SaaS, you don't provide any material to your customer. So, you have the "juridic loophole" as we had.

of course, for non hosted libraries, one provide material, so you/we must release the code under GPL. but (and that's the trick with LEK), for hosted libraries, one provide no material.

About:

> Also, what about the data?
We already explicitly say : "datas are your's, you can get the SQL dump at any time".

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Nick Dimant
In reply to this post by nicomo
At PTFS Europe we offer Koha under the GPL.  Our Koha hosting service explicitly gives customers command line access if they want it and access to the full system and data.  We also provide a facility where all hosted Koha customers get an automatic copy of all of their data to a destination of their choice, scheduled daily if required.

BTW we still have not been included in the Pay for Support listing - it would be great if someone could arrange this

Thanks

Nick
--
Nick Dimant
Managing Director
PTFS Europe Ltd





2009/10/23 MJ Ray [hidden email]:
  
Nicolas Morin [hidden email]
    
[...] we at BibLibre
posted an article on our web site about this issue:
http://www.biblibre.com/content/liblime-koha-biblibre-and-floss
      
Amongst other things, that says:

?"BibLibre decided we needed to modify our standard hosting contract
?to close the GPL loophole used by LibLime: in our future contracts,
?and when the current contracts are renewed, an extra article is
?added to the contract which specifies that even though the software
?is hosted, the library has access to the source code, GPLed."

I'm surprised because software.coop's usual contract terms have said
that we "grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission" since at
least 2006 and probably before (I'd need to check paper files to be
sure).

For Koha, that means you get a copy under the GPL, basically.

What with all the flaming of LibLime for hosting lock-in, I didn't
expect that other Koha vendors weren't making at least that promise
already. ?So - would the other vendors like to state their current
contract permissions? ?Anyone else want to follow the co-op and
BibLibre and make this promise to your buyers?

Also, I'd like to know whether anyone else's hosting-source-access
clause forbids evil tricks like public key encryption? ?Offering
access alone isn't sufficient. ?Also, what about the data?

    
As far as Im aware Liblime is the only vendor in the history of Koha,
certainly the only vendor listed on the Koha support page, to refuse
to give the source code, and database access to their customers.
For me thats where the flames are coming from.
I will find out what the Catalyst contracts say, but we don't have and
Software as a Service Koha clients, they are all self hosted. But I
will look just for curiosity sake.

Chris

  

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Magnus Enger
2009/10/23 Nick Dimant <[hidden email]>:
> At PTFS Europe we offer Koha under the GPL.  Our Koha hosting service
> explicitly gives customers command line access if they want it and access to
> the full system and data.  We also provide a facility where all hosted Koha
> customers get an automatic copy of all of their data to a destination of
> their choice, scheduled daily if required.

Hi all!

As a small vendor of Koha-related services right in the middle of the
process of setting up shop and getting (hosted) customer #1 up and
running, I find this discussion very interesting!

I'm just curious about how PTFS provides their customers wit a copy of
all their data - is that a dump from MySQL or something else? And what
about the command line access? Does that mean they can mess with files
on the server? Do they get read and/or write access to the database?
How is this treated in the contract, is there a clause that the
customer must pay the vendor to set things straight if they mess
things up? Do they ever mess things up, or even use the command line
access for anything? Is the hosting shared between different clients
so one client could mess things up for the others?

Sorry if I'm prying too cloesly into your internal stuff - again, I'm
just curious about how others are doing these things...

My own plan is mainly to sell hosted Koha on a shared host, with no
access for customers to the running code, but with an exact copy of
the code available from a public git repository at all times.

I'm still considering how to give customers access to the data, but I
am thinking along the lines of providing access to dumps from MySQL at
some interval, e.g. daily or weekly.

Regards,
Magnus Enger
libriotech.no
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Colin Campbell-5
In reply to this post by Kyle Hall
On 10/22/2009 08:53 PM, Kyle Hall wrote:
> Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a
> requirement for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to
> alter the terms of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org
One thing recent events have shown is that as a community we cannot
guarantee that a vendor will will act tomorrow as they act today. Or
that a large vendor may not suddenly decide to bring its weight into the
library market (think microsoft as a worst case, or maybe the company
that does the payroll and backoffice for your institution wants to add a
library package addon). As such we have to depend on the licensing terms
of the software we rely on to do our work and the freedoms, rights and
responsibilities that they grant us.
   It's not a problem that is peculiar to this project and we can
benefit from the work of the greater free software community. We should
seriously be looking at whether we should alter the licence for future
contributions to Koha (and I think we may well find ourselves at the
beginning of a period of major growth now). The Free Software Foundation
already promote a licence that closes the Software as a Service gap, see
the annoucement here:
  > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv3-saas
and the actual license here
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

whether this is the way to go or not the freedoms in the GPL have
been a good foundation to the growth of this community. I think we
need to ensure they are carried on to future users and it is a subject
we need to give serious attention to

Colin


--
Colin Campbell
Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited
Content Management and Library Solutions
+44 (0) 208 366 1295 (phone)
+44 (0) 7759 633626  (mobile)
[hidden email]
skype: colin_campbell2

http://www.ptfs-europe.com
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by paul POULAIN-3
Paul Poulain wrote: [...]
> In your contract, you say it's written : "
>
> grant permission to the Buyer to use, copy, modify, adapt or
> enhance the material supplied in the performance of the Services, so
> far as [the co-op] is permitted to grant that permission"
>
> but... in a SaaS, you don't provide any material to your customer. So, you have the "juridic loophole" as we had.

No, it's the material *supplied in the performance* that the Buyer is
permitted to copy it.  Note that the clause is not limited to the
material supplied to the Buyer in the way suggested.

> > Also, what about the data?
> We already explicitly say : "datas are your's, you can get the SQL dump at any time".

So no prohibition on the encrypting the data in the SQL dump?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

paul POULAIN-3
MJ Ray a écrit :
>> but... in a SaaS, you don't provide any material to your customer. So, you have the "juridic loophole" as we had.
>>    
> No, it's the material *supplied in the performance* that the Buyer is
> permitted to copy it.  Note that the clause is not limited to the
> material supplied to the Buyer in the way suggested.  
OK, there's some English subtleties I have missed ;-)

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Colin Campbell-5
Colin Campbell wrote:

> On 10/22/2009 08:53 PM, Kyle Hall wrote:
> > Maybe access to the source of in-house modifications should be a
> > requirement for being a listed vendor on the site? We may not be able to
> > alter the terms of the GPL, but we can decide the terms of koha.org
> One thing recent events have shown is that as a community we cannot
> guarantee that a vendor will will act tomorrow as they act today. Or
> that a large vendor may not suddenly decide to bring its weight into the
> library market (think microsoft as a worst case, or maybe the company
> that does the payroll and backoffice for your institution wants to add a
> library package addon). As such we have to depend on the licensing terms
> of the software we rely on to do our work and the freedoms, rights and
> responsibilities that they grant us.

These are social challenges and any legal-only solution will not work
well in practice.  Relying only on the licensing would allow
privately-owned companies that comply with the letter of the licence
while not joining in the spirit of the community to exploit the
community.  It is essential that we bring social measures into play in
a more library-involving, less legalistic way than the Koha project
has for some time.

> [...] We should
> seriously be looking at whether we should alter the licence for future
> contributions to Koha (and I think we may well find ourselves at the
> beginning of a period of major growth now). The Free Software Foundation
> already promote a licence that closes the Software as a Service gap, see
> the annoucement here:
>   > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-03-29-gplv3-saas
> and the actual license here
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
> whether this is the way to go or not the freedoms in the GPL have
> been a good foundation to the growth of this community. I think we
> need to ensure they are carried on to future users and it is a subject
> we need to give serious attention to

Please read the list archives.  I looked at it seriously during its
drafting and, personally, I feel that AGPL is a bogus licence, based
on the absurd idea that one can "ensure cooperation" with
contract-based compulsion when it has been well-known for over 70
years that true cooperation is voluntary.  See for example
http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html#1

There are also unanswered questions and probably other loopholes
created by its current version.  Anyway, see the archives.

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Kyle Hall
In reply to this post by Thomas Dukleth-3
> There are altogether too many exclusionary rules already for being listed
> on the 'pay for support' page .  There may even be legal hazard from any
> possible mishap with a litigious library for certifying competence in a
> world of human frailty if the Koha community might be understood to
> function as a trade association in some legal jurisdictions which had
> certified the qualifications of some members.

I don't think the vendor listing has ever made claims about competence.

> I presume we are now moving away from a process where one support company
> or a small group of support companies would exercise exclusive control
> over what appears on the community website.

I believe that is the goal.

> I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the
> community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding
> listing support service companies in the past year.  I am not recommending
> such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.

I like Chris's idea better. List everyone who applies, without
judgment. Maybe even randomize the list on each view.
I believe that removing the vendor list would definitely hurt the
project itself. Right now, if a library is interested, they have one
page where they can find every koha vendor ( at least all the one's
serious enough to get listed. )

> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
> anyone from the rules.  Any rules worth having are rules which should be
> applied equally to all.

As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
koha.org, that's not going to happen.

Kyle
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

nengard

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Kyle Hall <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the
> community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding
> listing support service companies in the past year.  I am not recommending
> such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.

I like Chris's idea better. List everyone who applies, without
judgment. Maybe even randomize the list on each view.
I believe that removing the vendor list would definitely hurt the
project itself. Right now, if a library is interested, they have one
page where they can find every koha vendor ( at least all the one's
serious enough to get listed. )


Just to add another idea about the organization of the vendor listing page - why not create a map - then it's not random and it's not alpha - you zoom into your country and see who's there - just an idea since I just finished teaching my mashups workshop and we talked about map mashups :)
 
> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
> anyone from the rules.  Any rules worth having are rules which should be
> applied equally to all.

As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
koha.org, that's not going to happen.

The idea is that this is going to change - we're going to form a committee and work with the group we choose in the survey to control Koha assets.

Nicole


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Kyle Hall
Just to add another idea about the organization of the vendor listing page - why not create a map - then it's not random and it's not alpha - you zoom into your country and see who's there - just an idea since I just finished teaching my mashups workshop and we talked about map mashups :)

Fantastic idea! Nicole++
 
 
> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
> anyone from the rules.  Any rules worth having are rules which should be
> applied equally to all.

As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
koha.org, that's not going to happen.

The idea is that this is going to change - we're going to form a committee and work with the group we choose in the survey to control Koha assets.

Indeed. I suppose that the proper solution to changing the listing rules is to have all listed vendors agree to all the changes to make sure they are aware and still in compliance.
 
Nicole

 


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Colin Campbell-5
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
On 10/23/2009 11:00 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Colin Campbell wrote:

> Please read the list archives.  I looked at it seriously during its
> drafting and, personally, I feel that AGPL is a bogus licence, based
> on the absurd idea that one can "ensure cooperation" with
> contract-based compulsion when it has been well-known for over 70
> years that true cooperation is voluntary.  See for example
> http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html#1
>
I've read them first time and thought your view of the license a
caricature. The license does not mention co-operation it merely tries to
give those who purchase SaaS the same rights and privileges over source
as the GPL permitted. As such it enables co-operation, but as you point
out that is voluntary.
Colin

--
Colin Campbell
Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited
Content Management and Library Solutions
+44 (0) 208 366 1295 (phone)
+44 (0) 7759 633626  (mobile)
[hidden email]
skype: colin_campbell2

http://www.ptfs-europe.com
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Kyle Hall
I've been a proponent of the AGPL in the past. I suppose my question
is, would switching to the AGPL hurt the project in any way? Assuming
it fails to "ensure cooperation", wouldn't that just make it
equivalent to the GPLv3?

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
Information Technology
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )




On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM, Colin Campbell
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/23/2009 11:00 AM, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>> Please read the list archives.  I looked at it seriously during its
>> drafting and, personally, I feel that AGPL is a bogus licence, based
>> on the absurd idea that one can "ensure cooperation" with
>> contract-based compulsion when it has been well-known for over 70
>> years that true cooperation is voluntary.  See for example
>> http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html#1
>>
> I've read them first time and thought your view of the license a
> caricature. The license does not mention co-operation it merely tries to
> give those who purchase SaaS the same rights and privileges over source
> as the GPL permitted. As such it enables co-operation, but as you point
> out that is voluntary.
> Colin
>
> --
> Colin Campbell
> Software Engineer, PTFS Europe Limited
> Content Management and Library Solutions
> +44 (0) 208 366 1295 (phone)
> +44 (0) 7759 633626  (mobile)
> [hidden email]
> skype: colin_campbell2
>
> http://www.ptfs-europe.com
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Ben Ide
In reply to this post by nicomo
Hi, all.

I'm hoping to write a sort of "minority opinion" regarding the current
voting, but I thought I'd voice this concern now rather than waiting.

Please, please, please stop *reacting* to current events.  You do
yourselves and your future a disservice if you base large decisions on
a reactionary stance.

Instead, try to postulate current and future needs based on the
entirety of your history.  Try to anticipate future growth and
demands.  And above all, please think about your customer base, the
libraries who use Koha.  If you are not addressing their needs and
trends, you risk dooming this application and relegating all your work
to history's ashcan.

At the very least, you should not let your feelings about one company
push you in any direction.  If you do, you are essentially letting the
target of your feelings dictate your moves.

I know you've been talking about these changes for a while, but you
are acting now.  And it's your actions that are disconcerting.  And I
know that I'm a minority of one here, so I don't expect much sympathy.
 Just, please, think about what you are doing independently of current
events.

Thank you.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future (was: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS)

paul POULAIN-3
In reply to this post by Kyle Hall
Kyle Hall a écrit :
>> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
>> anyone from the rules. Any rules worth having are rules which should be
>> applied equally to all.
>>    
> As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
> koha.org, that's not going to happen.
>  
You get a point here. We can't even access download.koha.org, we can't
modify anything on koha.org, except if a company that has left the
community decide to accept or do the changes we want.
The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over koha.org?
the short answer here is = we can't.
The next question is: what do we do now?

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

nengard
In reply to this post by Ben Ide
You make a good point - and normally I'd agree with you - but I think that makes our decisions now is a must - not just because of recent events, but because it should have never been like this in the first place.  Koha should have always been under the governance/blanket/protection/whatever a non-profit organization of some sort - it should have never ended up that vendors with financial stakes hold control over simple things like the community website and trademarks. 

Yes, current events are making this decision process reactionary - but I think it's made everyone learn from their original mistake. This isn't about one company - this is about making the community stronger/safer/better organized.  It's about making sure that the assets created by the community are in the control of the community - not in the control of any for-profit company - not matter what that company believes or what business decisions they have made in the past and currently.

Nicole

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Ben Ide <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, all.

I'm hoping to write a sort of "minority opinion" regarding the current
voting, but I thought I'd voice this concern now rather than waiting.

Please, please, please stop *reacting* to current events.  You do
yourselves and your future a disservice if you base large decisions on
a reactionary stance.

Instead, try to postulate current and future needs based on the
entirety of your history.  Try to anticipate future growth and
demands.  And above all, please think about your customer base, the
libraries who use Koha.  If you are not addressing their needs and
trends, you risk dooming this application and relegating all your work
to history's ashcan.

At the very least, you should not let your feelings about one company
push you in any direction.  If you do, you are essentially letting the
target of your feelings dictate your moves.

I know you've been talking about these changes for a while, but you
are acting now.  And it's your actions that are disconcerting.  And I
know that I'm a minority of one here, so I don't expect much sympathy.
 Just, please, think about what you are doing independently of current
events.

Thank you.
-- Ben
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

Kyle Hall
In reply to this post by Ben Ide
> Please, please, please stop *reacting* to current events.  You do
> yourselves and your future a disservice if you base large decisions on
> a reactionary stance.

I wouldn't say that we are 'reacting' to current events. I would say
that the current events have provided a catalyst for processes we had
already planned to do.

> Instead, try to postulate current and future needs based on the
> entirety of your history.  Try to anticipate future growth and
> demands.  And above all, please think about your customer base, the
> libraries who use Koha.  If you are not addressing their needs and
> trends, you risk dooming this application and relegating all your work
> to history's ashcan.

I would like to think we do, but nobody is psychic. As a library IT
guy, the needs of my librarians are my first priority.

> At the very least, you should not let your feelings about one company
> push you in any direction.  If you do, you are essentially letting the
> target of your feelings dictate your moves.

Again, I think this has been a catalyst for a planned action, rather
than a reaction.

> I know you've been talking about these changes for a while, but you
> are acting now.  And it's your actions that are disconcerting.  And I
> know that I'm a minority of one here, so I don't expect much sympathy.
>  Just, please, think about what you are doing independently of current
> events.

I've always welcomed dissenting opinions and have kept my mind open to
all ideas. It's important that opposing viewpoints be declared and
discussed.

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
Information Technology
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )


> Thank you.
> -- Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future (was: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS)

Kyle Hall
In reply to this post by paul POULAIN-3
> The next question is: what do we do now?
Change the name of the project, register new URLs and trademarks. Take
control of our own community.

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
Information Technology
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )




On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Paul Poulain <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Kyle Hall a écrit :
>>> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting,
>>> anyone from the rules. Any rules worth having are rules which should be
>>> applied equally to all.
>>>
>> As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
>> koha.org, that's not going to happen.
>>
> You get a point here. We can't even access download.koha.org, we can't
> modify anything on koha.org, except if a company that has left the
> community decide to accept or do the changes we want.
> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over koha.org?
> the short answer here is = we can't.
> The next question is: what do we do now?
>
> --
> Paul POULAIN
> http://www.biblibre.com
> Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
> Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future (was: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS)

Erik Lewis
Is it inconceivable that the community will not have the Koha name  
back to use?


On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Kyle Hall wrote:

>> The next question is: what do we do now?
> Change the name of the project, register new URLs and trademarks. Take
> control of our own community.
>
> Kyle
>
> http://www.kylehall.info
> Information Technology
> Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Paul Poulain <[hidden email]
> > wrote:
>> Kyle Hall a écrit :
>>>> The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning  
>>>> exempting,
>>>> anyone from the rules. Any rules worth having are rules which  
>>>> should be
>>>> applied equally to all.
>>>>
>>> As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over
>>> koha.org, that's not going to happen.
>>>
>> You get a point here. We can't even access download.koha.org, we  
>> can't
>> modify anything on koha.org, except if a company that has left the
>> community decide to accept or do the changes we want.
>> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over  
>> koha.org?
>> the short answer here is = we can't.
>> The next question is: what do we do now?
>>
>> --
>> Paul POULAIN
>> http://www.biblibre.com
>> Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
>> Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Koha mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future (was: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS)

Zeno Tajoli
Hi to all,

> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over  
> koha.org?
> the short answer here is = we can't.
> The next question is: what do we do now?

we need to register a new site, put all info / manual/FAQ/ect. here,
tell to everyone that there is a new koha site and de-link koha.org.

Who do control wiki.koha.org ?

Bye
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future

paul POULAIN-3
tajoli a écrit :

> Hi to all,
>  
>> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over  
>> koha.org?
>> the short answer here is = we can't.
>> The next question is: what do we do now?
>>    
>
> we need to register a new site, put all info / manual/FAQ/ect. here,
> tell to everyone that there is a new koha site and de-link koha.org.
>
> Who do control wiki.koha.org ?
>  
Everything is under LL hands. Except mailing lists, that we host (but we
don't manage the DNS, it's LL ).

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Liblime, Koha, BibLibre and FLOSS

paul POULAIN-3
In reply to this post by Ben Ide
Ben Ide a écrit :
> Hi, all.
>  
Hi Ben,
> I'm hoping to write a sort of "minority opinion" regarding the current
> voting, but I thought I'd voice this concern now rather than waiting.
>
> Please, please, please stop *reacting* to current events.  You do
> yourselves and your future a disservice if you base large decisions on
> a reactionary stance.
>  

If you investigate this list archive, you should find things about "Koha
Software Foundation", that LL announced to help rising (Josh even
announced that LL would put $10 000 in the fundation) The problem is
that, of course, the KSF won't happend by LL now, so we are working an
other solution.
So it's a reaction, but not only a reaction.

Look here :
http://lists.koha.org/pipermail/koha-devel/2006-March/005864.html, it's
the 1st thread I could find about the KSF.

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future

Joann Ransom-2
In reply to this post by paul POULAIN-3
Hi everyone,

When I finished work yesterday it looked highly likely that Horowhenua Library Trust would be the prefeered option for hlding the community 'assets' in safe hands until a long term solution is arrived at.

May I ask that the Trust is given a little time to contact Liblime directly, offlist, and invite Joshua to handover his assets. He has always said he will do this and I am optimistic that he will honour his word. He has been a long serving, highly respected and valued member of the Koha Community, aside from this little blip, and I think we owe him and Horowhenua Library Trust a little space to quietly sort this out.

Does that sound acceptle? May I ask for 1 months 'space' to work with Joshua directly?  

Kind regards

Joann Ransom.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Paul Poulain <[hidden email]> wrote:
tajoli a écrit :
> Hi to all,
>
>> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over
>> koha.org?
>> the short answer here is = we can't.
>> The next question is: what do we do now?
>>
>
> we need to register a new site, put all info / manual/FAQ/ect. here,
> tell to everyone that there is a new koha site and de-link koha.org.
>
> Who do control wiki.koha.org ?
>
Everything is under LL hands. Except mailing lists, that we host (but we
don't manage the DNS, it's LL ).

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha



--
Joann Ransom RLIANZA
Acting Head of Libraries,
Horowhenua Library Trust.

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: koha.org future

Lori Ayre
Excellent idea, Joann.  I think some direct communication between Josh and HLT (or whomever is voted in) is just what is needed. 

Lori Ayre

2009/10/23 Joann Ransom <[hidden email]>
Hi everyone,

When I finished work yesterday it looked highly likely that Horowhenua Library Trust would be the prefeered option for hlding the community 'assets' in safe hands until a long term solution is arrived at.

May I ask that the Trust is given a little time to contact Liblime directly, offlist, and invite Joshua to handover his assets. He has always said he will do this and I am optimistic that he will honour his word. He has been a long serving, highly respected and valued member of the Koha Community, aside from this little blip, and I think we owe him and Horowhenua Library Trust a little space to quietly sort this out.

Does that sound acceptle? May I ask for 1 months 'space' to work with Joshua directly?  

Kind regards

Joann Ransom.


On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Paul Poulain <[hidden email]> wrote:
tajoli a écrit :
> Hi to all,
>
>> The next question is: how could we retrieve some control over
>> koha.org?
>> the short answer here is = we can't.
>> The next question is: what do we do now?
>>
>
> we need to register a new site, put all info / manual/FAQ/ect. here,
> tell to everyone that there is a new koha site and de-link koha.org.
>
> Who do control wiki.koha.org ?
>
Everything is under LL hands. Except mailing lists, that we host (but we
don't manage the DNS, it's LL ).

--
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha



--
Joann Ransom RLIANZA
Acting Head of Libraries,
Horowhenua Library Trust.

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha



_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
12