Re: Services_Shipping proposal update

I applied for UPS ready saying and they responded with this: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <upsrp01@ups.com> Date: Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:06 AM Subject: UPS Ready Program - Santiance Corporation To: kris@santiance.com Kristopher, Thank you for your interest in the UPS Ready™ Program. UPS has reviewed your application and has made a decision not to authorize you at this time. Please know that each request is evaluated by the UPS Ready™ Team. We consider business models, value to customers and UPS, ability to develop and support application(s) within given Program parameters, age and size of the company, as well as the full completion of the Application form. The UPS Ready Program is for 3rd Party Developers who have an existing application that is currently being used by its customers, in which they would like to integrate two or more of the UPS Online Base Tools (Rates & Services, Tracking, Time-in-Transit, Address Validation) and/or the Ship API, for resale. The primary reason for rejection is due to the following aspects of your application: · UPS Ready does not support open source models, or authorize such models to have access to UPS API technology. UPS's APIs are licensed tools, and any unlicensed use is prohibited. We will retain your information for future reference. Please feel free to contact us again in the future should you wish to re-apply for consideration to the Program. Thank you. UPS Ready™ Team On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Philippe Jausions <pear@11abacus.com> wrote: > Kristopher Ives wrote: > > 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. > > I know about these kind of issues with a credit card processor backend > for Payment_Process. > > > 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 would assume the head of the legal department would be Teri Plummer > McClure > http://www.ups.com/pressroom/us/bios/bios/0,2262,145,00.html > > > 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. > > How about getting "UPS Ready" certification. Not sure what that would > entail though. Would you need to hold a PEAR channel on your company's > server? Could PEAR itself be a "UPS Ready provider"? (Very doubtful, and > even less so given PEAR has zero legal status)? > > > http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/bussol/offering/technology/alliances.html > > There is a reference to "Open Source" in the registration form > https://www.ups.com/forms/e-mail/ready_partner?loc=en_US > > Taken from the FAQ's (emphasis mine): > > "What types of solutions providers should join the UPS Ready program? > Consider joining the program if your company provides services, develops > hardware or software solutions, or distributes software based on UPS > technologies. Such services include, but are not limited to, consulting, > implementation, training, custom application development, software > migration, __integration__, e-commerce solution development, and Web and > application hosting. " > > It seems like some PHP e-commerce solutions are already listed. However > they are whole solutions, so the question remains open if a package > would fall into that category. > > > Based on what I read this license is completely not open source friend. > > Based on your interpretations of the license, what do you think? > > Based on the EUR and license you pointed at, yes you seem to have read > it correctly. That being said, I'm not a lawyer either. I guess it would > depend on which agreement you have to agree to before using the "Software". > > > 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. > > Sounds good to start with. > > > 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. > > See "UPS Ready" program above. > > > Please let me know what you think about these ideas and the direction of > > this proposal as a whole. > > Philippe > > > > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:35 PM, David Coallier <davidc@php.net> wrote: > > > >> 2008/9/3 Kristopher Ives <kristopher.ives@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> 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 > >