Since yesterday I have been studying a pogetto OpenSource called PAFlow , created for the Document Management to 'internal Public PHASE. The project is fully in line with the specifications required by current regulations and promises very well. PAFlow is based on Zope.
I'm currently testing the software platform on Debian Testing with kernel 2.6.13.4, Python 2.3.5-8. Some modules you need to 'run PAFlow not found in the official Debian repositories and I decided to install from source.
Update: After several adventures I got a installazioen ALMOST working, but because the documentation is so incomplete? : - /
Tags: News , Personal , Free Software
Why we are very committed to finishing the project itself, and you do what we can to provide the documentation (which we hope to release in the coming days, BTW ...)
First of all thank you for the answer: the unexpected welcome. in the meantime I joined the mailing list.
Hello, paflow but where is it? there is in the repositories and download from the site ... you can not do ...
But where do you download PaFLOW?? is an Open Source project or not?
I do not follow the project for some time. paflow.it and the project on sourceforge seem dead
Hello Paul,
I saw that PaFlow is a distributed project.
I'm looking for other software on which to test and I came across PyPaPi and e-Prot.
Both seem valid, but they support, for those not quite crafty than with Linux, not very consistent ...
You know other solutions?
Hello, I have no experience of other similar projects, I'm sorry!
pypapi has a mailing list where developers often respond the same ..
to meet Antonio, paflow, on paper and 'an open source project ... but in fact for a decision regrettable, and' was removed from the official sites where before you could download it and now you can 'buy (I think) only by a provider ...
things that can happen only in Italy ...
If it can affect our will. company produces a Logical Objects Open Source Software for managing documents created in Java.
The product is called LogicalDOC http://www.logicaldoc.it
This is a Web-based system that is available in Community Edition and fired.
Among the features that may be of interest to the Protocol's computer support and management of privacy with password expiration, WebDAV Protocols of documents, import mailboxes, and much more.
Erm opensource does not mean necessarily free.
Under the GPL is another thing ..
Open source code open = .. that one can change a comma and then sell it and does not go against any laws ..
= open source you can see the code and consequently modify or copy.
Yeah, and in fact here http://crcr.toscana.it/catalogo/view_product.php?&id=54 is just above the GPL. A shame all Italian. Italy, the people of the most clever (starting with the government).
I would say that the government is conniving with the clever, or better, they decide who to take a project and then divide up the cake.
Paflow, time and 'managed by Liberologico, who from, hear, hear:
1) under the gpl pa pa but if it distributes the source, Liberologico, did not provide more 'updates;
2) under a proprietary license, and according to them compatible with the GPL, which forbids any form of change.
The great thing What you know '? That the project 'was paid for with our money, and then closed, clumsy, the guys in question.
Are still looking for the source code for version 2.3 (although they think they have it deleted)
Good evening,
I'm Andrea Vecchi, CTO Liberologico.
I want to clarify some aspects, that - my view - have been treated lightly in the discussions that I have read in this forum:
a) "Open Source" does not mean "freely downloadable by anyone"
b) "Open Source" does not mean "paid for with public money"
c) Liberologico PAFlow distributes licenses for free (Customer services are made to pay only "in outline": consulting, training, specific configurations, customizations, etc..)
d) is not true that Liberologico does not provide software updates if the PA (or any other customer, even private) distributes PAFlow sources (assuming they can do it).
Liberologico bought the springs from iCube PAFlow and who "removed" from the network to avoid that some "naive" or "system of Sunday" they could "speak evil" simply because it failed to install or configure it properly.
On the other hand, when the sources were freely downloadable (and they are sati for several years) no "willing developer network" has never "bothered" to write one line of code to "share" with the "community", many Instead they were private individuals and companies who have "exploited" the product, sometimes even gaining a lot of money, without involving in any way, even "as a courtesy," iCube.
As we Liberologico:
1) "relaunched" the product, expanding it with more functionally result of huge investment company (other than public money ...)
2) made the product and the Tuscan-compliance and enrolled at the regional reuse
3) invested heavily in marketing and sales
4) ensuring an adequate technical support to customers (with trouble-ticketing systems, custom)
5) set up training plans using the tool with highly qualified personnel
6) written manuals, instantiating a wiki inolte shared with customers / users
Finally, as Liberologico, say constant attention to all the R & D projects that provide for software development, and at this moment - as I write - we are working in this direction.
I hope I have clarified some aspects, certainly not for lack of clear information, and I remain at your disposal for any further clarifications.
Andrea Vecchi
Good morning,
Gonzo is Paul, one of the lead developer of PAFlow.
I apologize to our guests if they give an answer a little 'long, but were made some incorrect statements about the project PAFlow and LPG. I will answer to the various interventions made.
@ 0disse0
I understand that our decision might not like it, but in retrospect it was absolutely correct. After closing the access we found no companies that unloaded PAFlow, offered it to the PA without us and then, in case of installation problems, unloaded all the blame on the final product.
It 'unfortunate that in Italy there are people who live on the work of others, but this is what happens and I can not find any "reprehensible" to try to keep someone else alive in my work.
There were companies that were using our online demo PAFlow to sell to their customers in the case of a large telecommunications company, the courses used to make the PA, without telling us anything at all: one day we discovered why we called the teacher, complaining that the demo did not work and he could not continue the course.
@ Paris
I do not understand the nature of the claims you make.
The dual licensing practice is well known in the world of free software, let me cite two examples such as MySQL and QT, just to go to practice.
In general, I would say I'm surprised to see so many people EXPLAIN as a free software project for the PA should be done.
I would rather see many people DO free software projects for the PA. There would be less controversial and more software available.
I am responsible mktg and commercial PAFlow and, integration of explanations already left by my colleagues, I would add a further clarification on the modalities of distribution of PAFlow:
PAFlow is a free product distributed under a dual licensing:
1) is issued to all public bodies under the GNU GPL v2.
2) is provided to individuals with a restrictive licensing model (not inconsistent with the GNU GPL v2), in order to ensure proper management of the development process, protecting and guaranteeing private investment and the quality of the software provided to bodies. In other words a company can get Paflow only after signing a special contract with Liberologico for one specific use. Any other use must be governed by specific contracts on a case by case basis. Alternatively you can establish partnership agreements, which are granted only to companies that can demonstrate financial viability and technical capacity to ensure adequate service levels.
Also for reasons of protecting the quality of software and support services, the source code PAFlow is not made available through the Internet, however, this condition is irrelevant with respect to the free software definition, which refers to the mode of product licenses and Distribution of source code. Therefore PAFlow no license costs (not to be paid an annual fee for use of the system) and the only costs involved are those related to installation services and system configuration, training and personnel training, assistance and Maintaining Your annual , edited by staff or our partners Liberologico accredited.
I hope that at this point has no more doubts.
Dear gentlemen Paola Ponticelli, Paul Bizzarri, Andrea Vecchi,
judging from what you write can be deduced that quite ignorant of what is involved in the license GPLv2.
There is no way to distribute software under the GPLv2 license only to a limited group of users. This would not be more than the GPLv2 license, which also forces you to publish the source code and make them visible at all (which of course do not).
In this respect you are completely "illegal".
Among other things, the management of this project clearly of public is not at all clear.
What is not clear especially to those who pretend like you to make free projects (not open source, as you boast even use the GPL license) is that you should use the economic model that is quite different from the traditional one: you should not make pay a "license" (ie the traditional hustler that's not clear what would law) but rather the need for consulting work: installation, maintenance, support, extensions, etc..
Ie even if the software is free you can earn the same because you are the best and you know how you want to reshoot.
I wonder, why insist on the GPL, if in reality you are a regular seller of proprietary software (or magically become such)?
Mr. Gentile. Balestra,
about the GPL, it reads:
"The user is required to make available the software source code to people who have received a copy or, alternatively, accompany the software with a written offer to make source code available upon request at nominal charge.
The modified versions of a program under the GNU GPL copyleft are subject to the constraint only in the case of distribution, that is when the software is sold by a legal entity to another. There is no obligation to distribution, in any case. "
In fact, we provide the source for PAFlow to our customers.
And we are not required to publish "freely available on the web."
Regarding your statement:
"Among other things, the management of this project clearly of public is not at all clear."
I wish it were more explicit, even to see if there are legal grounds to appeal a result of his statements.
With regard to the claim later, that is:
"What is particularly unclear as to who you pretend to implement projects free (open source, as you boast even use the GPL license) is that you should use the economic model that is quite different from the traditional one: you should not charge you the "license" (ie the traditional hustler that's not clear what would law) but rather the need for consulting work: installation, maintenance, support, extensions, etc.. "
will certainly have read our post that the model that she invites us to pursue in such forward-looking is exactly what we follow, or sell installation services, support, extensions, and so on.
Without charging a euro license PAFlow.
So I really do not understand your question. Or maybe you have not read our posts carefully.
Sincerely,
Andrea Vecchi
Dear Mr. Ballestra,
I invite you to be more cautious in making statements, given the lack of knowledge about the world of free software and licenses that her comments show.
His statement that we would be "illegal" is not only offensive, absolutely false: the GPL is a software license that establishes the terms of use and transfer of the software itself.
In particular, there is NO OBLIGATION to the GPLv2 license to "publish the source code and make them visible to all" try to read (for the first time, I would say) the GPLv2 license and to find an obligation to do so, and notice that this requirement does not exist.
With the GPL we transfer to the client software, source code and rights of use granted by this license, rights, who, I remember, are to perform, study, modify and distribute the source code to other parties.
We have no obligation to publish the code to others who are not our customers, nor even to make the software available under license in the same way as other subjects. What you can do is that a user that we have given a copy of the GPL PAFlow the transfer to third parties, which must receive the software under GPL.
And 'instead in our full power, as producers of software, provide software to our customers according to the license that is more convenient: GPL, MPL, Apache, Berkeley, or owner, this is our choice of business, and has not nothing "illegal".
I invite you to read the licenses mentioned, and if it is not able to understand the content, to be assisted by good lawyer experienced in copyright issues, will help to avoid careless statements like those made in his post.
Dear Gentlemen,
My name is Adrian deficiency are a new entrepreneur in the field of independent financial advisory firms would need to ask you a question. Being on start up I'm trying to contain costs to the nth degree. I therefore ask you if you would know and you could kindly show me a document and process management application that can run on Win Vista, Win7 without a server, preferably open source or freeware, and Italian. My need is a software that can scan, store, catalog and manage a mass of documents such as statements, instruments of incorporation, etc. ... I thank anyone who can help me with my whole heart. adrycar@libero.it
Dear Sir Bridges, Gonzo, Old,
About the above, I located but 'most' of a doubt, if, as I think (and as seems evident) paflow born and distributed open source under the GPL v2.
True that there are dual-licensed software, but it seems to me that in those cases in which the original license, and 'the product was distributed is not the GPL, but instead was later given the chance' to get / use the same licensed product under GPL license / option of the holder of rights: ok, in that case, as I understand, and 'knowledge, there are no problems whatsoever.
The problems, in my humble opinion, there are, however, if you plan to distribute a program under the GPL v2 received subjecting the recipient a license that has more restrictions than the original license. Simply carry an extract of two articles of the GPL v2, where it notes that "Any attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or otherwise distribute the Program is void," and that "You may not impose any further restrictions on exercise of the rights granted herein "
...
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute
the Program except as expressly provided under
this License. Any attempt to copy, modify, sublicense
or otherwise distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License.
On the other hand, parties who have received copies, or rights,
covered by this License by persons who violate the license
As shown here will not have their licenses terminated so long as you
behave according to it.
...
6. Each time you redistribute the Program or a work based on it are
, the recipient automatically receives a license from
the original licensor. Licensor to copy,
distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and
these conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Who
distributes programs covered by this License is not 'still
responsible for enforcing compliance with this License to third parties.
Best Regards
Sun GL
The lords have thought good, in fact they do not want to give everyone the chance to distribute the software for free without them, there is something in your pocket (and their partners pay to be certified, no doubt) and even less does not give INTED can anyone who is not close to them, to care.
In short, in fact they are anticompetitive distribution and service ...
Well done.
Legal or not certainly does not fall in the spirit of opensource!
[...] PAFlow: Open Source Document Management | Keltika (kk) [...]
I do not think there are big problems. Like any open source software under the GPL or GPL2, when it is released with CODEST license, it is certainly possible that the creator of the software is not required to publish the source. This is not the point.
Strange and very dangerous for your advice in the pa, who have sold rights to use a GPL license, and even more strange to learn that the original project was funded by the PA was because of the GPL, and not dual license . We face a fine band of furbini, which are likely to have received money to develop an open source project for the Committee, and now try to sell it to right and left as a non-free software. I see no applicability in this case, because they are not in any way distinguishable pa and private companies when it comes to software on lpg. Contact the Free Software Foundation, to find out if, as is Italy fsf can take legal because such situations will not occur again. Needless to tell you that if I make a trip to one of your clients, here in Tuscany will take me 3 seconds to copy the code and fork it somewhere, because once again be available. Ultimately, it is highly likely that this paflow was born as a project funded by the taxpayers ... in fact .. already paid.
"In fact, we provide the source for PAFlow to our customers.
And we are not required to publish "freely available on the web". "
So ... nothing to stop anyone, once you find a copy of a given PAFlow Public Administration, working on it freely, of course, if the PA has received that decides to publish it. Right?
no wrong.
1.You are required to publish the web, but you are required to supply to companies in the LPG. You can not use in any case, a dual license for this software, depending on the client. You can choose to provide the software in two versions, and pa companies, but only if the version is always published lpg. It 'very precise about the rule. VirtualBox, for example, has an enterprise version for a fee, but there is the source of the LPG version, for any type of end user. Sorry to say, but the goal of the GPL, the original request from your client, the software is to make a collective property .. and it is a principle that you are pursuing.
2.Other thing: PA does not have power over the software, not theirs. So, unless a breach of sensitive data or access violation, is not necessary authorization for publication of public license gpl software installed at third.
you are violating the GPL, Italian-style awkwardly. But in this case I can say with absolute certainty that you are traveling in a very slippery ground, of which, I think, you are not fully aware, with possible implications for your business bad. I hope you think well in which direction to move to safeguard your business, to take legal action, which could also fall on the contract with the government won.
The difference between smart and Lopen source is MySQL (which you mentioned) can freely download, recompile, and if you want EDIT Bashing.
And MySQL, Sun and Oracle, and no one warned them about a million people live in the work of a few.
Otherwise, very, very simply, there is not an open source or at least we do not disclose such software to sell ONLY the unwary (!!!) of the PA.
I do not see why not to take SHAREPOINT, because even if M $ want to be the source.
But M $ is not so hypocritical as to call its SW "Open Source".
Usual crafty hypocrites.
And then ... we were talking about a SW so complex! Bah. Toscani.
Mario, Microsoft confirms:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/gsp.mspx