Slashdot Mirror
Akopia Buys Minivend
David Adams of Akopia e-mailed me to let me know that Akopia has bought Minivend. Minivend is an open source project, and the creator along with several top developers will be joining Akopia. Akopia has Tallyman, which is also an e-commerce package, with different strengths. Why does this matter? The license is the GPL, and this is one of those situations where the open source project beats the closed source hands down. Congrats to Akopia.
While one can debate the merits of a license of the kind you propose, I don't think it is necessarily "in the spirit of the GPL". As I understand RMS, his point with the GPL was to ensure that programmers can obtain and modify the source code to the software they depend on. Linking source distribution to binary distribution, rather than use in for-profit applications, was a deliberate decision.
I would also be surprised if RMS didn't explicitly consider this when designing the GPL. After all, around MIT, Internet-based servers and services, distributed computation, mobile code, remote procedure calls, and all that were not exactly a new thing even in the 1980's. (The amazing thing to people coming out of that environment is that it is 2000 and the world still hasn't even caught up with a fraction of the technology developed and in use back then.)
Alan Knowles, an independent developer, is working on a PHP port of our OpenMerchant project. You can find information on OpenMerchant-PHP at http://www.hklc.com/projects/.
Me -- I work for OpenSales.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Making sure that the source modifications always comes back to the originators is not the purpose of the GPL.
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that people never get stuck with these black-box binaries that are the only way to access their data, so if something goes wrong (like a bug pops up or the source owner goes under), they can still deal with the problem and access their own data, and get it out to their friends. It's a very serious threat in the long term; how much data was lost from the early days because it was on non-standard storage media? Now we've learned to transfer everything from computer to computer before it is lost, but losing access to the software access mechanisms could be as harmful as losing access to the hardware access mechanisms was back then.
That is the freedom the GPL is about: the freedom to access your own work, and to share it with your friends, without following the terms of a distant gatekeeper. It's the freedom to write a program, and let people run it without having to buy an operating system. It's the freedom to write a document, and let people read it without buying a special program for it. It's the freedom to make a movie, and let people watch it without having to buy a special player approved and taxed by a consortium.
All software defines a standard of some sort. It might be a data standard or a usage standard, but it's something that people have to invest in, and their investment should not be controlled by the creator of the software. Seperating the standards from the source is impractical, except under unusual conditions where the standards are built first, and the programs are mere implementations of it (in that case, though, why not simply compile the standard? if it's rigorous enough to fully define compliant systems, a computer program should be able to implement it). In general, for the standards to be libre, the source must be libre.
That is why it is important that embraced and extended versions of GPL software not be proprietary. It is better that they not be created at all, no matter how much more useful and valuable they are to the end user. The infection of the system with proprietary softare (and therefore, proprietary standards) is an attack on our individual freedoms (you can't hear what another says without buying the same software they use, you can't offer them your work without forcing them to pay a third party), and must be prevented, if possible. Offering a tool to make proprietary software is like paying taxes that will be used to enslave others.
The "in-house use" loophole has always been there. It's never been a big deal. If some company has your data locked up in their servers, it doesn't matter whether you have access to the source they use, you still can't access your own work without their co-operation. For you to bother with them in the first place, they must offer it back to you in a useable form. There's no cure for it, and none is needed.
[BTW, I don't really agree with all this rubbish; I believe in public domain software. But, for that matter, I'm not entirely against censorship or even slavery. In a world where every bite you eat could go into the mouth of a starving child (of which there will never be a shortage; people who rein in their breeding will inevitably be displaced by those who don't), a morality based on egalitarian concepts like universal freedom inevitably either contradicts itself or amounts to a collective suicide. Either way, if you follow such a morality to its logical end, you will just make room for someone with less fastidious (or utterly unrelated) moral standards. All I know for sure is that I see starving children on TV every day, and I still take second helpings at dinner. After all, they're not my children.]
I developed one or two sites in Minivend. I found it to be mind-numbingly slow, and its in-page markup/scripting language was worse than anything I've seen before or since, and that's including Net.Data. Minivend's scripting language is a series of hacks piled upon hacks piled upon hacks. Getting it to do even the simplest of things is an exercise in pain-endurance.
If it's a choice between Minivend and nothing, I'd probably go with nothing. All you really need to replace the vast majority of its 'features' is an in-page scripting language with decent session support.
I'm afraid, in this case, saying that it beats the closed-source solutions is just demonstrating that you've never compared its features or performance with what's being sold at the moment.
Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
There's nothing magical about the GPL that makes it superior to BSD or any other open source license in this respect. Thus the fallacy of the statement by Anonymous Coward in post #40.
--
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
Open Source is there to avoid you getting shafted by a discontinued product, it's not an in-perpetuity licence to a free lunch.
If I write an on-line app, it costs me money. Who is going to pay for that ? If I'm selling it, or selling services based on it as an Open Source app, then that's a business and revenue model I can work with. OTOH, the point about the "online" apps that you complain are a "breach" of the GPL is that because they're never distributed, there's no opportunity to generate revenue from them.
Altruism is all very well, and many geeks will happily code for free, but would you like to explain it to my landlord and my catfood supplier too ?
Hemos meant that the Tallyman/Minivend combination is of higher qulaity than the commercial ecommerce systems that they compete against in the marketplace. And they'll only continue to improve, and at a faster pace than the closed source systems.
In any event, your screed has zero bearing on GPLed code, which was the subject under discussion. Why? Well, GPL authorizes the production and distribution of derivative works, under the condition that the derivative works be GPLed as well, and that source be made available.
Summary: Yes, copyright permits the original work's owner to forbid others from distributing derivative works. No, copyright does not grant the owner the copyright over derivative works. In any case, it doesn't matter for GPLed works, so quit flaming.
This isn't anything new -- it's been the same for years with compilers and other programs whose output is being sold rather than the program itself. Fortunately it hasn't prevented most people from contributing source, and even if it did, I'd challenge you to write a liscense that would require as much and still be enforceable -- It's hard enough to find GPL violations when you have the actual binary, so how the heck are you going to do it remotely with someone's website?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I agree, but for different reasons. I think the design of Minivend is sound, but if you get too complicated with the Minivend Markup language it slows to a snails pace. I've always attributed it to a slow parser.
Although I have heard the new version of Minivend is a total rewrite. I've wondered if it's gotten better.
Check out FreeTrade:
http://www.working-dogs.com/freetrade/
It's a GREAT e-commerce solution written in PHP.
- Isaac =)
The GPL is meaningless for online apps.
A company can download your app, modify it, and then never contribute the source back to you if they choose, because the source only has to be distibuted with the binaries, and the binaries are never distributed.
While most people understand this now, I feel it is time for a new licence to be created. It should say something like:
If this code is ever used in a publically accessible service, then the source for it and all your modifications must be easily available.
Of course, we would need to define "source-code" as including database schemes, but not data, and including HTML templates, but not orginal artwork etc.
"Publically accessible" also needs to be defined. If someone has to register for the site, does that make it publically accessible, for instance? I think it should in most cases.
I think a licence like that would be more in the spirit of the GPL.
On the other hand, maybe there is little need for it, because there is little competitve advantage in keeping your modifications private - it is cheaper to let everyone debug them, and compete on branding.
I believe the SourceForge people have been considering these issues in some depth.
I don't think it'd be possible to run it under mod_perl. The CGI component of minivend is a C program (vlink?) that just forwards the http request to the Perl daemon running as the back-end. I pretty much came to the conclusion that the whole thing is a kludge. I was running it on a PII w/ 256Meg, and the delay was noticeable with a single client requesting pages. I shudder to think what sort of response serious customers are getting. (I don't work at that company any more). I'd seriously recommend trialling the software before committing yourself to implementing it anywhere. My recommendation is that if you're going the free software route, write your own implementation specifically for the site you're developing, in whatever language you're comfortable with. You won't lose nearly as much development time as you think, because the Minivend markup language is so evil, and your site won't run like a dog. Charles Miller
--
The more I learn about the Internet, the more amazed I am that it works at all.
He was complaining about the inaccuracy in hemos' article, where he assumed that because Tallyman was commercial, therefore it == closed source.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Minivend is very cool. It's a daemon that creates dynamic web pages (especially shopping carts) from databases. It's written completely in perl which allows it to access virtually any popular database thanks to perl/DBI. Also, LDAP support is currently being integrated.
Minivend is also very powerful. You can easily embed perl code direcly into a web page (ya I know you can do that with this-that-and-other.4.2 web package) but minivend also integrates that with a web based database editor and nearly every feature an ecommerce site would use. Things like automatic order routing, user accounts, integration with credit card verification services, support for discounts, coupons and quantity pricing, plus lots more (see the product info page).
Best of all, minivend is open source and will remain open source and will soon be merged with the tallyman site management interface.
Weird. I've just spent the last few hours checking out various e-commerce solutions for various projects, and then this article pops up on Slashdot. Cool!
I've been playing with OpenSales (www.opensales.org) this evening - but both MiniVend and OpenSales are Perl-based projects.
Does anyone have any pointers for similarly-powerful e-commerce systems that are based on PHP? The reason I ask is that this would be easier for me to implement than a Perl-based system, given that I've already got a lot of PHP code for my catalogs and such.
On a separate note, it's really cool to see these sorts of systems being built and released under the GPL. Definitely the way for a new economy and new industry to expand unhindered, imho.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
----------///------------
[phone rings, Hemos answers]
Hemos: Hello?
Joe Random Executive: Hi, is this Slashdot? I want some of this free publicity!
Hemos: Well, you know our policy. Do you have a press release?
Joe Random Executive: Yep!
Hemos: Does it contain the words "open" and "source?"
Joe Random Executive: Yep!
Hemos: Fine. Just e-mail me the name of your company and your website URL. I'll have it up tomorrow morning, under a random topic.
Joe Random Executive: Fine, just don't put it in the BSD section! No one reads that!
Hemos: Yeah, alright. BSD sure sucks, huh?
Joe Random Executive: It sure does!
Hemos: What a bunch of losers...
Joe Random Executive: Yeah, yeah... gotta run, m'kay? Thanks for the advertis -- I mean, Open Source announcements. Ciao!
Hemos: Whatever. Later.
[hangs up phone]
[time passes...]
[the next morning...]
Slashdot, top story, under the "Linux" icon:
CmdrTaco (voice of Ricky Ricardo): Heemooooooooos!!!
Hemos: Oh, shit... I forget the Golden Rule: never mix a poor editorial decision-making process with grain alcohol!
---------///----------
--
I like to watch.
Actualy, he was replying to his own post due to formatting issues.