Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com

[Richie Hindle]

[John]

Rekall is to be released under the GPL

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction. GPL'd code can be
used commercially. The Open Source Definition
(http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) makes this clear:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps
that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial
users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Needless to say, the GPL meets the conditions of the Open Source
Definition.

(I don't have an axe to grind over any of the issues here - I'm just
pointing out a factual inaccuracy.)

 

[GrayGeek]

Maybe you can use MxDB or whatever it's called, if you want to
use something non-free (e.g. if you were willing to use TKC Rekall
in the first place, and since you're using Oracle anyway).

I think it's a ridiculous deficiency in Python that it doesn't come
with database drivers in its standard library. Maybe someone can port
over the ones from PHP or Perl DBI. I'd be willing to do that if
funding and access to a development box with the relevant databases is
available.

I agree. It's a BIG hold back

 

[Lothar Scholz]

It is just a matter of time before TKC goes under and that time is very,
very short

Do you know something about the "BlackAdder" copyright. If there are
the same problems as with "Rekall" i'm not very happy to spend 400
USD.

Maybe a statement from TKC is necessary, something like QT has given -
when the company stops the product for a long time they will put the
product under the GPL.

 

[phil hunt]

[John]

Rekall is to be released under the GPL

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.

Not at all. The website says:

==================================================================
We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel
licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
version and the normal commercial version.

The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
you would need to take out a support subscription.
The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

The commerical version would include a basic level support
subscription valid for 12 months and you would be allowed to use
Rekall commerically.
=================================================================

There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

 

[Richie Hindle]

[Richie]

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.
[Phil]
There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

You are right of course. Let me be more precise (addressing John again):

The words used on your website seem to me to imply that the GPL version
could not be used commercially. If that is the intention of those words,
you are mistaken about either the meaning of the GPL, or your power as a
copyright owner to control the application of the GPL to your code. If
you release your code under the GPL, it can be used commercially, and you
cannot change that.

(I vote Phil for pedant of the week.

 

[Paul Boddie]

Not at all. The website says:

==================================================================
We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel
licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
version and the normal commercial version.

Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
whether the developers have misinterpreted the GPL or are trying to
layer their own incompatible stipulations on top.

The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
you would need to take out a support subscription.
The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
sentence?

[Rest of notice cut]

There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

Paul

 

[Alex Martelli]

Paul Boddie wrote:
...

Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know

*blink* surely the source has to be given only if the binaries are?
Can't stop others from redistributing that, but "demand the source
code w/o buying anything" doesn't seem something the GPL mandates.

You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
sentence?

Presumably in the "obvious way", yes.

Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

No, your analogy is misplaced: the "aren't allowed" would be
overtly false in your "it's like".

A correct analogy would be: "I never strangle somebody with the
initials PB on a Friday". This statement _is_ perfectly true: I
never strangle anybody at all, and therefore, in particular, not
people with the initials PB, and even more specifically, not
on a Friday,

However, it's _misleading_ because, although Aristotelian logic
has nothing to say in the matter, people "naturally expect" that
a qualification restricting a statement is there for SOME reason:
typically because, without the restriction, the statement would
not hold. But that's just a heuristical inference based on "if
the restriction wasn't necessary he wouldn't bother stating it" --
there's nothing either dishonest or contradictory in putting on
a statement _more_ qualifications than strictly necessary (it's
the difference between "precondition" and "WEAKEST precondition").

E.g., a similarly misleading statement would be "In Euclidean
geometry, there is one and only one perpendicular to a given
line through a given external point". The qualification "In
Euclidean geometry" is way stronger than necessary, since
existence and uniqueness of the perpendicular follow from the
first _four_ axioms of Euclid only, _not_ needing the fifth
one which is not valid in non-Euclidean geometries such as
Riemann's and Lobachevsky's.

And yet, unless I have specifically undertaken to tutor
somebody in a field including non-Euclidean geometries, I
might well make such a statement and consider it defensible.
Indeed, I have seen _proofs_ of this very statement, based
on other results which _do_ hold in Euclidean geometry only...
Presumably, depending on context, the responsibility for
learning about NON-Euclidean geometries may be held to belong
to the reader of my statements, without any duty on my part
to instruct said reader in this subject.

Similarly, the asserters of the above statement (falsely
claimed to be contradictory, though truly claimable as being
misleading) might contend that the responsibility for learning
about the GPL belong to their customers, without any duty on
their part to instruct said customers. I'm gonna stay neutral
on the specifics, but I've always been fascinated by the issues
of NON-weakest preconditions and qualification in many fields
(natural language, programming, and logic) so I couldn't resist...


Alex

 

[John Dean]

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use"

The above statement as been removed

 

[John Dean]

[Richie]
The above statement has been removed.
But I should point out that only Rekall for Linux will be released under the
GPL. If all goes well those variant will follow

[Phil]

There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

You are right of course. Let me be more precise (addressing John again):

The words used on your website seem to me to imply that the GPL version
could not be used commercially. If that is the intention of those words,
you are mistaken about either the meaning of the GPL, or your power as a
copyright owner to control the application of the GPL to your code. If
you release your code under the GPL, it can be used commercially, and you
cannot change that.

(I vote Phil for pedant of the week.

 

[Tim Ronning]

Paul Boddie wrote:
...

*blink* surely the source has to be given only if the binaries are?
Can't stop others from redistributing that, but "demand the source
code w/o buying anything" doesn't seem something the GPL mandates.



Presumably in the "obvious way", yes.



No, your analogy is misplaced: the "aren't allowed" would be
overtly false in your "it's like".

A correct analogy would be: "I never strangle somebody with the
initials PB on a Friday". This statement _is_ perfectly true: I
never strangle anybody at all, and therefore, in particular, not
people with the initials PB, and even more specifically, not
on a Friday,

However, it's _misleading_ because, although Aristotelian logic
has nothing to say in the matter, people "naturally expect" that
a qualification restricting a statement is there for SOME reason:
typically because, without the restriction, the statement would
not hold. But that's just a heuristical inference based on "if
the restriction wasn't necessary he wouldn't bother stating it" --
there's nothing either dishonest or contradictory in putting on
a statement _more_ qualifications than strictly necessary (it's
the difference between "precondition" and "WEAKEST precondition").

E.g., a similarly misleading statement would be "In Euclidean
geometry, there is one and only one perpendicular to a given
line through a given external point". The qualification "In
Euclidean geometry" is way stronger than necessary, since
existence and uniqueness of the perpendicular follow from the
first _four_ axioms of Euclid only, _not_ needing the fifth
one which is not valid in non-Euclidean geometries such as
Riemann's and Lobachevsky's.

And yet, unless I have specifically undertaken to tutor
somebody in a field including non-Euclidean geometries, I
might well make such a statement and consider it defensible.
Indeed, I have seen _proofs_ of this very statement, based
on other results which _do_ hold in Euclidean geometry only...
Presumably, depending on context, the responsibility for
learning about NON-Euclidean geometries may be held to belong
to the reader of my statements, without any duty on my part
to instruct said reader in this subject.

Similarly, the asserters of the above statement (falsely
claimed to be contradictory, though truly claimable as being
misleading) might contend that the responsibility for learning
about the GPL belong to their customers, without any duty on
their part to instruct said customers. I'm gonna stay neutral
on the specifics, but I've always been fascinated by the issues
of NON-weakest preconditions and qualification in many fields
(natural language, programming, and logic) so I couldn't resist...


Alex

Puuuhhh! And I just ordered your Nutshell book. God thing it was COD!

Joke aside, I'm sure it's fine, I just coldn't resist either......

Rgds
Tim R.

 

[phil hunt]

[Richie]

Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction.
[Phil]
There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

You are right of course. Let me be more precise (addressing John again):

The words used on your website seem to me to imply that the GPL version
could not be used commercially. If that is the intention of those words,
you are mistaken about either the meaning of the GPL, or your power as a
copyright owner to control the application of the GPL to your code. If
you release your code under the GPL, it can be used commercially, and you
cannot change that.

(I vote Phil for pedant of the week.

Weeee! I get an award!

 

[phil hunt]

Not at all. The website says:

==================================================================
We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel
licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL
version and the normal commercial version.

Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
whether the developers have misinterpreted the GPL or are trying to
layer their own incompatible stipulations on top.

The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore
you would need to take out a support subscription.
The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
sentence?

[Rest of notice cut]

There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After
all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to
be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say
that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth",
Absolutely.

or is it just
downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

No. AFAICT, it never makes two statements of the forms X and not-X.