I'm interested in resuming support for MS SQL Server.

I was recently "knocked back" from submitting a module because it had a connection with a "commercial product" The reason given was that a recent decision was made that Drupal stuff wouldn't concern itself with commercial software. Having said that, in another recent email it was noted that this policy needs to be reviewed again. My module is just a kind of simple "stats for your website" product. Wouldn't bolting on MS-SQL represent a much larger association with a commercial product? I'm not bothered by the exclusion of my module one bit btw, just thought that if there's a time and a place for a policy review then bolting MS-SQL is a good kick off point as MS-SQL is about as commercial a product you're likely to see ;) best regards AjK

AjK, Yes, I believe that has to do with the GPL license that Drupal currently uses. "Interpretations" vary, but for the most part it comes down to anything that touches Drupal directly, the source must free and the "product" must be free, however the "service" is billable (man I love lawyers). So, with regards to MS-SQL, database.inc sits in the middle and is freely available and open, yet MS-SQL is in indirect contact with Drupal, so the license will still hold water. With regards to your module, it is in direct contact with Drupal; you would have to make your module a "driver" to your "proprietary" code to hold true to GPL. This is how I understand it though. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Hmm...upon rereading your message, seems your module was just a driver to a 3rd party commercial product. Do you have a link to the thread about your module? - Souvent -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of AjK Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:16 AM To: development@drupal.org Subject: RE: [development] Microsoft SQL Server

I'm interested in resuming support for MS SQL Server.

I was recently "knocked back" from submitting a module because it had a connection with a "commercial product" The reason given was that a recent decision was made that Drupal stuff wouldn't concern itself with commercial software. Having said that, in another recent email it was noted that this policy needs to be reviewed again. My module is just a kind of simple "stats for your website" product. Wouldn't bolting on MS-SQL represent a much larger association with a commercial product? I'm not bothered by the exclusion of my module one bit btw, just thought that if there's a time and a place for a policy review then bolting MS-SQL is a good kick off point as MS-SQL is about as commercial a product you're likely to see ;) best regards AjK

AjK, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to commit that. I'm close to committing a module that assists you in signing up for a commercial text link ad program and don't see how your module or my module differ from the adsense module that Khalid referred to. Do you have a link to the discussion that surrounded your efforts to commit your module? As I stated previously, I, as a module consumer, would expect full disclosure about your ties to the commercial vendor (in my case they paid me to write the module and will reward me if anyone uses it), but that is more of an unwritten rule. Cheers, Robert AjK wrote:

...

With regards to your module, it is in direct contact with Drupal; you would have to make your module a "driver" to your "proprietary" code to hold true to GPL.

This is how I understand it though. Anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

Hmm...upon rereading your message, seems your module was just a driver to a 3rd party commercial product. Do you have a link to the thread about your module?

All my module does is plonk some javascript in the page. The javascipt is "open" (otherwise who can use it?!). That javascript gets an image from a remote server to the users browser and it's that access to a different server that gets the stats (a bit like many of these page counters you see).

That's all. If you want to use the stats gather, you need an account with the provider at the other end.

My module is GPL and does not contain any code that is either non-GPL or otherwise not already in the public domain (like the javascript).

So, that's it really.

best regards --AjK

AjK, I didn't follow the discussion that occurred around your module and don't know what the issues were, but I personally don't see any problems with commercial associations as long as they are kept in the open. In fact, I think it is healthy for people to be able to make money with free software. MS-SQL support would be a fantastic thing for Drupal to have, as would Oracle and DB2 support. Anybody who would shoot these down has their head in some Gnu's butt. -Robert AjK wrote:

...

I'm interested in resuming support for MS SQL Server.

I was recently "knocked back" from submitting a module because it had a connection with a "commercial product"

The reason given was that a recent decision was made that Drupal stuff wouldn't concern itself with commercial software.

Having said that, in another recent email it was noted that this policy needs to be reviewed again.

My module is just a kind of simple "stats for your website" product.

Wouldn't bolting on MS-SQL represent a much larger association with a commercial product?

I'm not bothered by the exclusion of my module one bit btw, just thought that if there's a time and a place for a policy review then bolting MS-SQL is a good kick off point as MS-SQL is about as commercial a product you're likely to see ;)

best regards AjK

Well put. I concur. -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of Robert Douglass Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:21 PM To: development@drupal.org Subject: Re: [development] Microsoft SQL Server AjK, I didn't follow the discussion that occurred around your module and don't know what the issues were, but I personally don't see any problems with commercial associations as long as they are kept in the open. In fact, I think it is healthy for people to be able to make money with free software. MS-SQL support would be a fantastic thing for Drupal to have, as would Oracle and DB2 support. Anybody who would shoot these down has their head in some Gnu's butt. -Robert AjK wrote:

...

I'm interested in resuming support for MS SQL Server.

I was recently "knocked back" from submitting a module because it had a connection with a "commercial product"

The reason given was that a recent decision was made that Drupal stuff wouldn't concern itself with commercial software.

Having said that, in another recent email it was noted that this policy needs to be reviewed again.

My module is just a kind of simple "stats for your website" product.

Wouldn't bolting on MS-SQL represent a much larger association with a commercial product?

I'm not bothered by the exclusion of my module one bit btw, just thought that if there's a time and a place for a policy review then bolting MS-SQL is a good kick off point as MS-SQL is about as commercial a product you're likely to see ;)

best regards AjK

Hi Gerhard, thanks for clearing this up.

I told him, I'd rather not have him contribute it since it is only usefull if you actually buy that package. Then it occurred to me a short while later, that probably all ecommerce payment gateways and amazon.com integration modules are of this kind too and it doesn't make much sense to host the one module and not the other. After that I suggested we discuss this, but nobody took me up on the offer )the mail was to the infrastructure list). My feelings are that we have every interest in being open to companies who want to write interfaces to their proprietary software. Let them worry about the ramifications of GPL; if they screw up we get more open source software =)

I would think we will probably come to an agreement pretty easily on this point.... the adsense module seems utterly uncontroversial (as do the ecommerce payment gateways), and the examples cited so far don't differ in any substantial way that I can put my finger on. Cheers, Robert

Perhaps if/after a conclusion is made, a summary of this discussion should be placed on in the FAQ or Handbook, so that others can reference the "general accepted policy" regarding this subject? I know that it has come up a few times and it would be nice to have one document to refer and change/update as necessary; keep everyone on the same page. -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of AjK Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:49 AM To: development@drupal.org; rob@robshouse.net Subject: RE: [development] Commercially oriented modules (was MicrosoftSQLServer) Robert,

Let them worry about the ramifications of GPL; if they screw up we get more open source software =)

Thanks for clearing this up for me, personally at least. I'm a third party integrator and have no ties with the Nedstat system. As such I don't want to get either Drupal or Nedstat into murky waters as a third party. So it seems to me at least I won't be committing my module to avoid any further problems. best regards --AjK

Yes, and there are going to be some "services", in which there will never really be a "GPL"/Free alternative (e.g. Payment Gateways...yeah, I'll send a letter to VeriSign for their code. :)) -----Original Message----- From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of Robert Douglass Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:44 PM To: development@drupal.org Subject: [development] Commercially oriented modules (was Microsoft SQLServer) Hi Gerhard, thanks for clearing this up.

I told him, I'd rather not have him contribute it since it is only usefull if you actually buy that package. Then it occurred to me a short while later, that probably all ecommerce payment gateways and amazon.com integration modules are of this kind too and it doesn't make much sense to host the one module and not the other. After that I suggested we discuss this, but nobody took me up on the offer )the mail was to the infrastructure list). My feelings are that we have every interest in being open to companies who want to write interfaces to their proprietary software. Let them worry about the ramifications of GPL; if they screw up we get more open source software =)

I would think we will probably come to an agreement pretty easily on this point.... the adsense module seems utterly uncontroversial (as do the ecommerce payment gateways), and the examples cited so far don't differ in any substantial way that I can put my finger on. Cheers, Robert

Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:

Robert Douglass wrote:

...

MS-SQL support would be a fantastic thing for Drupal to have, as would Oracle and DB2 support. Anybody who would shoot these down has their head in some Gnu's butt.

The project Ajk was talking about was about writing a module as an interface between Drupal and some commercial, third-party stats software, I think the name was netstat or similar.

I told him, I'd rather not have him contribute it since it is only usefull if you actually buy that package. Then it occurred to me a short while later, that probably all ecommerce payment gateways and amazon.com integration modules are of this kind too and it doesn't make much sense to host the one module and not the other. After that I suggested we discuss this, but nobody took me up on the offer )the mail was to the infrastructure list).

Let me explain how we arrived on that policy. Some time ago, maybe last summer, two people applied for cvs access. One wanted to integrate Drupal with a commercial CRM package and the other with some commercial chat application. Karoly and myself had discussed this, and then told them that we won't grant them access. They complained to me and I forwarded the matter to Dries who probably forgot about it. From that day on, I have not given CVS access to similar applications. There weren't that many, btw, Ajk's might have been the third only.

You mention problems with ecommerce, another one I can think of is smsgateway. In my opinion, the only consideration should be GPL legality. (With an option to debate anything that is simply horrid) sime