Re: Services_Shipping proposal update

This is the first time I've had this issue, so I'm playing a delicate balancing act between making sure my clients aren't affected by this, the PEAR community has an open shipping solution, and requesting UPS makes some kind of statement regarding the issue. I agree that we can't wave a magic wand and make the license disappear. We've spoke with UPS regarding this, but it's been a bunch of circles and we seem to always get in touch with people who have no idea what we're talking about. This is an attempt at a more public appeal. Does anyone here know who we could contact regarding this issue at UPS? I know we are PEAR developers, not UPS employees, but I understand most of us work with web sites that may have a relationship with them. I have found a number of other open solutions that in some way use the same UPS technologies, but haven't got a response from any of their authors or found any information about how they obtained the rights from UPS. Unless they disclose information about the agreements they did or didn't have with UPS, this probably won't help. Based on what I read this license is completely not open source friend. Based on your interpretations of the license, what do you think? Now that we are on the same page with this license, I want to discuss a couple of alternatives. Some of this slightly steps outside of Services_Shipping relationship to PEAR. The Services_Shipping_Driver_UPS package depends on a Services_Shipping_XML package, which does all the heavy lifting for HTTPS and XML communication. Based on the way I designed these packages, most of the work is done in the XML framework. So much so, that you can take all the proprietary data (the request and response document structure) and store them outside of the code. This will gives us a way to side-step some of the restrictions by providing the packages and separately the proprietary data for UPS or DHL. Another possibility is that our company offer this "installation" as a service that has no cost. The licenses says clearly they may hire subcontractors to install the software. However, I don't know how this line is drawn between a service and a product. Please let me know what you think about these ideas and the direction of this proposal as a whole. Cheers, Kristopher Ives Santiance Corporation On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:35 PM, David Coallier <davidc@php.net> wrote: > 2008/9/3 Kristopher Ives <kristopher.ives@gmail.com>: > > Hello fruit people, > > > > I have still been working on a package that offers a driver-based > shipping > > solution. We are currently moving into production with our code base and > > making the final fixes before we move the proposal forward. This includes > > only Services_Shipping and Services_Shipping_XML. This is unfortunate, > > because it won't be able to make shipments with any known carriers > > out-of-the-box. > > > > This mailing list is for discussion about development and packages, if I > > understand correctly. I also imagine that none of us are lawyers, or want > to > > spend a lot of time investigating non-open code or reading long licenses. > I > > have had some communication with the authors of other code bases that > > integrate with UPS, DHL, as well as solve other problems such as a lack > of > > base address and location package. > > > > I have setup a place listing the licensing concerns with the driver > packages > > as we try to push the Services_Shipping and Services_Shipping_XML > packages: > > > > http://wiki.santiance.com/index.php?title=Licensing_Issues > > > > This message is sent to the PEAR development list with the fullest intent > on > > improving the community - a.k.a - this isn't Blog Spam or anything > similar. > > If anyone wants to get involved you can contact me, the mailing list, > edit > > the wiki. This e-mail account is active on GMail XMMP (Jabber) server. > > > Hello there Kristopher, I am David Coallier (The currently elected > PEAR president) and it is my "job" to deal with problems with the > community and anything related. > > So far I am understanding that you are having issues releasing > Services_Shipping_Driver_UPS because of the license. I understand that > and that's ok. As long as your Services_Shipping and > Services_Shipping_XML packages are released under a license that is > allowed within PEAR this shouldn't be a problem. > > It is sad that UPS are forbidding one to make releases to the public > but it's life. There are other carriers out there that may end up > opening their API/Guts. > > How would you like the people to get involved with you in this? Are > you trying to put pressure on UPS for them to change their license? > > Thank you very much, > > > -- > Slan, > David >