Licence issue / versioning

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Licence issue / versioning

de Carvalho Klose, Daniel

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence model
of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:

The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!

I appreciate any statement regarding to my issue.

Kindest regards.

__________________________________
Dipl.- Ing. MSc Daniel de Carvalho Klose
System Administration
       
FTI Engineering Network GmbH
Witzlebenplatz 4    
D-14057 Berlin
phone: +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 20
fax: +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 60
       
mailto:[hidden email]
http://www.ftigroup.net




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence issue / versioning

Julian Reschke

de Carvalho Klose, Daniel wrote:

> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence model
> of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
> would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:
>
> The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
> webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
> weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
> the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
> odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
> versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
> the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!
>
> I appreciate any statement regarding to my issue.
>
> Kindest regards.

Hi.

First of all, there seems to be some confusion about Versioning in
WebDAV. Despite its name, WebDAV as defined per RFC2518 does not include
any versioning features. Those have been defined in DeltaV (RFC3253).

That is, if software package claims to support WebDAV, it's totally OK
for it not to implement RFC3253.

Hope this helps,

Julian

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence issue / versioning

Joe Feise
In reply to this post by de Carvalho Klose, Daniel

I am not a lawyer, but...
WebDAV and DeltaV are just protocol specifications. A commercial vendor can of
course charge for his particular _implementation_ of the protocols.
To stay within your example, FTP is a protocol specification. Vendors can (and
do) charge for their particular FTP implementation.

HTH,
-Joe

de Carvalho Klose, Daniel wrote on 03/17/06 03:24:

> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence model
> of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
> would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:
>
> The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
> webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
> weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
> the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
> odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
> versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
> the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!
>
> I appreciate any statement regarding to my issue.
>
> Kindest regards.
>
> __________________________________
> Dipl.- Ing. MSc Daniel de Carvalho Klose
> System Administration
>
> FTI Engineering Network GmbH
> Witzlebenplatz 4    
> D-14057 Berlin
> phone: +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 20
> fax: +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 60
>
> mailto:[hidden email]
> http://www.ftigroup.net
>
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Licence issue / versioning

Geoffrey M Clemm
In reply to this post by Julian Reschke

I don't think Daniel was asking whether a server can be WebDAV compliant
and not support the versioning functions (defined in RFC-3253), but rather
whether it is "odd" that the vendor is making the customer pay (or pay more)
for the versioning features than for the other features.  

In general, what a vendor decides to charge is completely up to that
vendor and is in no way constrained by how features are grouped in the
specifications.  So if a vendor wanted to charge for the ftp "send"
feature, but not charge for the "receive" feature, it is free to do so.

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 03/18/2006 11:27:18 AM:
> de Carvalho Klose, Daniel wrote:
> > I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence model
> > of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
> > would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:
> >
> > The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
> > webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
> > weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
> > the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
> > odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
> > versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
> > the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!

> First of all, there seems to be some confusion about Versioning in
> WebDAV. Despite its name, WebDAV as defined per RFC2518 does not include
> any versioning features. Those have been defined in DeltaV (RFC3253).
>
> That is, if software package claims to support WebDAV, it's totally OK
> for it not to implement RFC3253.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Licence issue / versioning

Vladimir Grishchenko-2
In reply to this post by de Carvalho Klose, Daniel
Licence issue / versioning
In a sense it is just like television - TV signal is an open standard and is free but you have to pay for a TV set to do anything useful with it. It the difference between the  standards and their implementations, while the former are usually free the latter are typically not. In general it is perfectly legal to charge for a WebDAV feature even when the underlying implementation is based on a 3rd party product, provided that, of course, your vendor doesn't violate any license agreements with that 3rd party.
 
Cheers,
Vlad.


From: [hidden email] on behalf of de Carvalho Klose, Daniel
Sent: Fri 3/17/2006 3:24 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Licence issue / versioning


Dear Sir or Madam,

I am currently concerning about one issue referring to the licence model
of one commercial vendor of a certain project management software and
would like to kindly ask you if it is right what this vendor is doing:

The vendor is promoting a webbased projectmanagement tool that has the
webdav standard included (file repository for project data etc.). The
weird thing of his licence model is, that the customer has to pay for
the "versioning feature" within the webdav standard. It seems totally
odd for me, since WEBDAV is an open standard that has already the
versioning feature included. For me it would be the same as paying for
the "send" feature in the ftp protocol, whereas "receiving" is free!

I appreciate any statement regarding to my issue.

Kindest regards.

__________________________________
Dipl.- Ing. MSc Daniel de Carvalho Klose       
System Administration  
       
FTI Engineering Network GmbH   
Witzlebenplatz 4   
D-14057 Berlin 
phone:  +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 20
fax:    +49 (0) 30 / 30 83 36 - 60     
       
[hidden email]
http://www.ftigroup.net






**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.