Re: Services_Shipping proposal update

Forgot I am corporate now, and must tag these types of things onto the end of interesting discussions: I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. Contact *your* lawyer for legalities on your state/country/planet for recording phone calls. Read this for your entertainment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#One_party_consent_states On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Kristopher Ives <kristopher.ives@gmail.com>wrote: > Greg,Thanks for posting the Digg article. I was suprised we mustered as > many diggs as we did, considering they obviously don't understand Open > Source or business. > > I no longer have to worry about my client's relationship with UPS, so I > hope to have some activity in this area very shortly. I think I'll move > forward with completing the proposal on Services_Shipping with the XML > framework. > > I hate to do this, but I noticed a few open source applications that use > UPS Online Tools. If they are doing it they are either doing so outside of > UPS's agreement, in cahootz with UPS somehow, or they lied on their UPS > Ready application. I don't want to go diverting the smoking gun though. > > I would really just like to get someone on the phone and hear them say it.. > I will record this and post it back. In Oregon I beleive only 1 party need > have consent to record a call, otherwise I'll do what they do to us and say > "This phone call may be recorded for *quality* purposes"... > > It's also worth mentioning, and some people that have developed with UPS > already know this, they give "Open Source Examples" in C with CURL inside > their developer document. Why do they give open source examples if they > don't "allow" open source business "models"? > > If anyone is interested in helping please let us know. > > Cheers, > Kristopher Ives > Santiance Corporation > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Gregory Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net>wrote: > >> Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > >> > That took them since September 4 to come up with? >> > Form letter/Use of radio buttons/Lack of a personal name FAIL. >> > >> > I don't suppose there is any point in illustrating that you are >> > providing a generic package which lowers the barrier for adoption and >> > actually *gains them* commercial users, if successful. >> >> Hi, >> >> >> http://digg.com/software/UPS_does_not_support_open_source_boycott_them >> >> Digg this link, perhaps we can apply a little old-fashioned pressure. >> It's time UPS moved into the 21st century. >> >> Greg >> > >