Re: Services_Shipping proposal update

How nice of them. So maybe it's time to use Fedex. I'm actually trying to get ahold of someone with DHL Germany. It only took a month so far. ;-( On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:05 AM, Kristopher Ives <kristopher.ives@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> >