First let me thank Greg for his many, many hours of dedicated service to the project. He will be missed, as will any others who decide to leave.
With Greg's departure, and many others deciding what their future involvement with the project will be, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions.
Questions like:
How many others will leave the project?
Who will lead into the future?
Will the project (finally) leave sourceforge?
Will PGV have a future or will it die out? Should PGV have a future or has it lived its life?
Will I stay (where "I" is myself and any of you still reading this)?
To be frankly honest, I don't know the answer to these questions. They will require a lot of thought and pondering by many people over the next few days. I feel it is important to pose them so that the rest of you can ponder them as well.
I do have the answer to one question that some of you may be wondering.
"Will John take over leadership again?"
Unfortunately, I can't. While I greatly enjoy developing code for PGV and enjoy working with the people in the PGV community, I cannot dedicate the hours of time or stress level that it would take to effectively manage or lead the project. This has been the case for a couple of years now, and is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Whoever takes over leading the project will need to know the code and the community as well as be willing to dedicate many hours to the project. It will be especially time consuming to transition from SF to a new host and whoever takes on the leadership role would need to lead out in that transition as well.
This leads me to more questions that I don't have the answers to. "Will I personally stay?" I don't know yet. "Will it be better for the project if I left" I don't know yet.
Anyway, I felt it was important to let everyone know where I stand as the original founder of the project in case it has any bearings on the rest of you as you make your decisions.
PGV could be on the brink of its greatest future ever, or it could be heading towards its final ends. Either way, PGV has had a long and healthy life for a software project (8 years) and IMO it has done a lot of good for the world,
-John
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I for one am very very sad. I like (no I love) this project. Sharing information, building knowledge is my life and my vocation. I am not a PHP programmer, nor will I ever be a PHP programmer. I respect the decisions of Greg and the others to leave this project. They are not leaving because of the project, they are leaving because of forces outside the project that they can not control. I probably would do the same. Knowledge should be free to share and the community should help to create new knowledge whenever possible, not stifle it!!
John,
What is the state of the documentation for future developers and/or customizes? Anyone who has PHP background may want to continue making personal changes and customization but without intimate PGV understand this will not happen.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I having been using PGV for a while now… it is something i am happy exists simply because it allows me to create a comprehensible record of my family geneology.
I am really worried about the future of PGV, what can ordinary users do to help?
also…
If there is an issue with PGV encryption method calls, why not make a version of PGV that does not use encryption and a version that does? i know this is likely more work… but would it not get around any sort of "ban".
I always thought of FOSS as some sort of resistance to irrational politics, it seems like "they" might be winning if large projects are disbanded as a response to pressure…
anyway… regardless of what happens i support the project.!
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As genealogists and PGV admins/users, we are indeed fortunate to have at our disposal unequivocally the best of the software projects available for our use, at no cost. Additionally, PGV at its current reiteration is sophisticated, snappy and relatively bug free as well as using the latest supporting software. It should live on, as is, for some considerable time. In the now nearly six years I've been with the project, it is a far better piece of software than ever before.
That said, I, like many of you, are sick that we are losing a talented and devoted project manager and that John, whose visions created the impetus to develop the project from the start has little time to contribute. Further, that the previous lightning speed of refinements and addtional features may come now at a snail's pace, is further distressing. However, as the project has previously faced losses and recovered and is today a much better program as a result. Let's be thankful for what we have and hopeful that we can continue with improvements.
Perhaps if we all had been a little more demonstrative of our appreciation of the time and talent devoted by our dedicated developers, more would have stayed. Open Source and Free does not simply mean take without gratitude, but a quick review of most posters here shows little contribution and qualified thanks.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
<QUOTE>PGV could be on the brink of its greatest future ever, or it could be heading
towards its final ends. Either way, PGV has had a long and healthy life for
a software project (8 years) and IMO it has done a lot of good for the world,
As a user without any understanding of all that's being discussed here, I sure hope it's not the final end of PGV!!! I never thought I'd get so far into genealogy. And to have a great product to house it in made the difference. Had I stayed with a static product, I would have abandon hope.
Developers: THANK YOU. From this user, your countless hours are appreciated. I respect the reasons of Greg leaving but sure wish he didn't. And, I hope future releases keep coming. SourceForge or not.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
As with the passing of a beloved friend, we should celebrate the life, rather than bemoan the loss.
We may regret losing inspired leaders, while at the same time, we can respect the decisions and wish all the best in the future.
PGV is like a child that now virtually has a life of it's own, and will never be "lost," although we may not recognize it's offspring several generations in the future. I'm not a programmer, but I and many others will continue to try to make sure PGV is not "orphaned."
Now, it's time to stop looking in the past, and start looking to the future.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I sure don't get the impression that Greg (and any others) left because they're not appreciated. I'm in awe of their abilities and the amount of time they have devoted to not only creating the product but also giving better user support than any project I know, paid or unpaid. The support level really is unusual, in case you didn't realize it. I could (maybe should) go on about that last point but it's not the point here.
I dabble in php but I don't think I have the ability help much. PGV will eventually need bug fixes and security tweaks - it's inevitable. Hopefully that will happen. Even without major upgrades, I do think we still have a product that will be useful for years. I don't see a better solution, and clearly a lot of other people don't either.
I think it's important that we establish PGV's status with respect to the international restrictions on encryption export. That's what started this, that's at the root of Greg's departure and if we don't address it we will have lost good people for nothing. If the project is legal for export, there is no censorship. If we were writing for the security industry I could see it, but the impression I have is that we are simply talking apples and oranges when we lump PGV in with "encryption software products". My impression is that hashes are not considered encryption in this regard.
And I do realize that for some the real issue is whether anyone can censor anything, but that issue isn't limited to PGV, SourceForge or the USA. I do personally think that restrictions should be placed on transfer of technology that is a threat to national security (think nuclear, but that's still censorship) , and I also think that no one in their right mind would put PGV anywhere near that category. So to me it's a non-issue until shown otherwise. Are the developers who leave this project going to abandon OS projects for good? That's what it'll take for most of them to avoid the core issue.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Given the time and effort that has been invested by so many in PGV, I'm astonished that everyone would give up so easily, moral considerations aside.
I wrote to BIS, who responded: "MD5 is a cryptographic hash algorithm. Items with MD5 only are controlled under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5A992 for hardware or ECCN 5D992 for software. Under the U. S. export control regulations, these items require a license for exports and reexports to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Separate reviews are required if your item any additional cryptographic algorithms."
That last bit might include session items - I don't know.
I've written back, asking about the process to get an export certificate. It might be easy, it might be hard. But I'm not going to die wondering.
This might all be a forlorn effort - but if the rules say we must comply, then I fancy PGV is worth the effort.
Anyone else feel this way? (A 'yes' won't cost you anything :-) )
Paul
Australia
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Paul,
Were you specifically asking about source code? I think it's treated differently than object code. The conclusion I drew was that a filing (without review) was going to be enough.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
First of all, I want to say, thank you Greg for all you patience and time!!! I can not express my self what I feel about you are leaving…
I do straggling too what I should do. 5 years with PGV and now this.
I do believe in Open Source and that it should be open for everyone with no restriction. That is the only reason why I contribute to any open source project at all. Unfortunately, I also feel that I would be a hypocrite if I would contribute to any project that is restricted for any reason.
It's hard to turn my back on PGV after 5 years. I would be happy if PGV would move somewhere else where Open Source policy is respected.
Or if Paul can receive a certification that would be great!
Thank you Paul for your efforts in advanced!
And thank you to all who has contributed in any way to PGV. We did made it to the best online genealogy program ever.
Until some final decision is made in respect to the Open Source policy, I have to signing off,
-Im
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The alternative is the paper application, the BIS-748P multipurpose application which is available from BIS. You must use the original form which must be typed. You can order the form by calling (202) 482-3332.
Is there someone I can call if I have additional questions or need specific guidance?
Assistance is available. The Office of Exporter Services has counselors available from our Washington DC headquarters at (202) 482-4811 and our Western Regional Office in California at (949) 660-0144 or (408) 998-8806
I'm probably going to need your OK (and assistance) to fill this in (unless someone else volunteers!), but I'm happy to give it a try.
Paul
Australia
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
From a relatively new comer to PGV. First I love the program and don't want to see it die.
Thank you Greg for all your hard work, dedication, time and talent given to PGV. I hate to see you leave yet understand your reasoning and respect your decision. I hope this situation resolves in a manner that allows your return without compromising your principals.
Thank you also to all the other contributors to the program and support on the forums.
I'll throw my support or vote to whatever it takes to keep PGV alive and well. Having worked with non-profit organizations over the years I believe in trying to give time, talent or treasure to the cause. I'm sorry I can't write in PHP to help in the talent department. I can't spend the time helping in forums as so many of you do (Thanks again! Support for PGV is awesome!) So for me I'm willing to contribute treasure - money - to the project. That's part of what I like about free, open source. It's worth it to me to voluntarily help as I can financially for those open source programs I use and like.
What I'm trying to get at is it seems to me there's a loyal following here willing to try to do what it takes to keep PGV alive. Could we duplicate this thread to Help and Translations, (can we make it "sticky" on this SF system?) so more users are aware of the current situation? Maybe a user who pops in on just an occasional or intermittent basis will see what's up and provide further options or needed help.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Lou
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The first thing I think that should be pointed out is that SF has ALWAYS had the rules that they are now finding it more and more difficult to turn a little of a blind eye to. It is the actions of others that has forced them into HAVING to be seen to be doing something!
I've been with SF since the 90's and re-registered in 2001 after a previous spat on access. Complaints that SF is spineless just annoy me, since THEY are trying to do the best they can, and since a lot of the money supporting SF is American, simply pulling everything out of America is not really practical?
I've indicated my 'feelings' already - sod politicians and more important sod religious fanatics - I'd be quite happy if we could just put them altogether somewhere and let them get on with it. Except they would want to involve everybody else as well :(
I'll be honest - I can't understand what Greg's problem is - after 10 or more years SF had to be seen to be doing something - which they did. The restrictions are simply academic, since in many cases IP blocking is just so random. Now if the core system HAD been set up properly in the first place - but that is another bitch ….. We just ignore crumbs thrown to the politicians and work around the problem? The politicians think they have won a 'war' they simply do not understand ;)
The source code for the encryption stuff that ALL of this relates to ALREADY has license conditions on it relating to the 'export' rules, so even moving it from one country to another does not remove the underlying problem. bitweaver has a modular approach to authentication, so we can just leave out the problem bit if we need to but is there really any point? Legally was it ever created in the US anyway?
Is it time to pull out of SF - yes - for lots of reasons and access is just one. But there is nothing any better to switch to? It is bad enough having to bugger around with SVN for PGV when it simply does not work the same way all the rest of my CVS controlled projects work. My bitweaver port of PGV is on CVS and I work between the two, so I can manage merging of individual changes - something which SVN seems incapable of! PDO is another 'religious war' area - it simply does not work and is no longer supported in PHP. So my own build of PGV has lost it.
In PGV4.0 days I had many of the sections rebuilt as smarty templates. I've had to scrap all of that work due to the changes in the core PGV engine, but the newer structure does make it easier to reo that work, so I can accommodate PGV as modules in the bitweaver framework. At some point I WILL have a fully integrated facility and my own freely accessible system, but yet another knee jurk action is not going to help :(
Good projects do not die, they simply evolve into new encarnations ….. ( God I hate this forum code ! )
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
First , as i did earlier, i want to thank developers for this essential genealogy software; i used several before and i can say PGV is the best one i ever "used".
For 5 years, PGV is the only software that allows me to update my genealogy data ….. and i'd like to be able to continue with it for many years to come.
Plus, the community here is always pleasant to read (i read every post) and helpful like no other.
I have to say i did not notice fundamental disagreements about moving from SF so i do not really understand why we wonder about the future of PGV today.
I understand and i share Greg's point of view about PGV being blocked.
Is moving not possible, i did not read John was against ?
I really wish Greg and friends come back and if anything, i'm able, to could be done in the future to go one improving PGV in future, i'll do my best.
Long life to PGV,
Thanks to every developper, thank to Greg (i hope to hear about you soon),
Regards,
André
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The problem with PDO is that it was a good idea at the time, but in order to get something out, it's 'roadmap' was rather restricted. It is only designed to abstract data between databases, and so everything else still has to be handled on a database by database basis. But even the 'data abstraction' still has many gaps, which is why I can't use pdo_firebird with PGV without re-writing every query in PGV :( and the oracle driver has the same problem. Most new development work is being done on the generic drivers, and so MySQL has added functions that SHOULD be implemented in PDO, but are restricted to MySQL. At the present time, there are a number of reasons why the PDO development is stalled, and until someone steps up to the plate to break the log jam, no-one is even bug fixing it.
I spent some time looking at getting the pdo_firebird driver functional, but Interbase/Firebird and Oracle need a level of transcation support that PDO can not currently provide. So I switched back to ADOdb which has been providing a transparent abstraction layer for years, and an using that rather than spending any more time on PDO. When PDO IS improved, it can be used inside ADOdb anyway, and that was the path I was using to try and debug things. The generic Firebird driver, and pdo_firebird running side by side and comparing the differences in results.
There is a list especially for PDO development, but not much is happening …. hence the statement that it is not being supported.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I have followed these recent "PGV Future" related posts with considerable interest. I am a long time PGV user and have a substantial investment in existing and planned PGV based websites. I do not begin to understand the tensions underlying these forum topics and certainly don't want to contribute to them, but I would genuinely appreciate some continuing, informed updates on progress toward resolution and the implications for the project. Thanks.
Tom
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I use bzr version control in my business and it's much easier for an old h*ker like me with limited brain bandwidth. It's a later generation (or 2) than cvs and svn. In other words, this change is all good (except all change requires some work).
The whole thing must be some misunderstanding - is every https site subject to approval? I thought https uses putatively unbreakable AES crypto. The web can't operate without security. Doesn't almost every session protocol require hashing? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography), MD5 is effectively broken. And most hash algorithms are even weaker. What are they worried about? It's like outlawing skeleton keys.
Personally, I plan to submit some patches soon. I'd rather that blocking didn't happen, but few people in the more repressive countries have internet access, and most of those that do may deserve to be blocked. And in China for instance (I assume it's blocked. but consider it an example) there is widespread knowledge of how to evade blocks. And there's no restriction on copying and redistribution - PGV is GPL. So let it fly, even if there's not a non-stop to everywhere.
Or move to Launchpad, change will do us good. Maybe the forum software over there works.
I also don't understand why there is an existential crisis at PGV. There doesn't seem to be any significant open source competition.
Curiously,
George
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
After 2 weeks I am finally able to come back and read the responses.
I think the export issues could be legally resolved and any efforts to help resolve those are greatly appreciated.
PGV is a stable and mature project. So it will continue to be downloaded and used. Where this will cause problems is in support and future development. I personally don't have the time to devote to adequately doing either. Perhaps other community members will pick up the slack. I will stick around to perform any administrative tasks and probably dabble in the code as I have time. Anyone interested in doing development please let me know and I will give the appropriate permissions.
I've heard rumors that some developers who have left are starting a new project based on PGV code but hosting it somewhere else. I don't have any of the details.
-John
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Thanks for the update. There are some of us out here who are anxiously following these proceedings, but don't want to interfere. We (at least I) just want to understand what is happening in order to adapt.
Tom
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
PGV is a stable and mature project. So it will continue to be downloaded and used.
I wholeheartedly agree, as was evident from my previous post. As one of the older (both in age as well as in time here) PGV-users, not only has PGV come a long way, but it has previously faced several developer losses (for various reasons) and spin-offs (GenMOD, for one), only to return with even better code. I'll be here to assist however I can, especially in user support issues, as current coding is no longer my forte.
I think the export issues could be legally resolved and any efforts to help resolve those are greatly appreciated.
This would certainly be a key issue in resolving at least one of the most troublesome issues at present. I hope you can coordinate this effort with those that have already attempted to begin the process and do so expeditiously.
-Stephen
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
It would be nice to be able to report some progress with an application for an export licence, but I can't.
Two weeks ago I went through the process of applying to the US Dept of Commerce for the necessary forms to be sent to me, so I could begin the process of applying.. So far, nothing has arrived. I'll give it a few more days before doing a bit of hassling.
Paul
Australia
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
First let me thank Greg for his many, many hours of dedicated service to the project. He will be missed, as will any others who decide to leave.
With Greg's departure, and many others deciding what their future involvement with the project will be, we are left with a lot of unanswered questions.
Questions like:
How many others will leave the project?
Who will lead into the future?
Will the project (finally) leave sourceforge?
Will PGV have a future or will it die out?
Should PGV have a future or has it lived its life?
Will I stay (where "I" is myself and any of you still reading this)?
To be frankly honest, I don't know the answer to these questions. They will require a lot of thought and pondering by many people over the next few days. I feel it is important to pose them so that the rest of you can ponder them as well.
I do have the answer to one question that some of you may be wondering.
"Will John take over leadership again?"
Unfortunately, I can't. While I greatly enjoy developing code for PGV and enjoy working with the people in the PGV community, I cannot dedicate the hours of time or stress level that it would take to effectively manage or lead the project. This has been the case for a couple of years now, and is not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Whoever takes over leading the project will need to know the code and the community as well as be willing to dedicate many hours to the project. It will be especially time consuming to transition from SF to a new host and whoever takes on the leadership role would need to lead out in that transition as well.
This leads me to more questions that I don't have the answers to. "Will I personally stay?" I don't know yet. "Will it be better for the project if I left" I don't know yet.
Anyway, I felt it was important to let everyone know where I stand as the original founder of the project in case it has any bearings on the rest of you as you make your decisions.
PGV could be on the brink of its greatest future ever, or it could be heading towards its final ends. Either way, PGV has had a long and healthy life for a software project (8 years) and IMO it has done a lot of good for the world,
-John
I for one am very very sad. I like (no I love) this project. Sharing information, building knowledge is my life and my vocation. I am not a PHP programmer, nor will I ever be a PHP programmer. I respect the decisions of Greg and the others to leave this project. They are not leaving because of the project, they are leaving because of forces outside the project that they can not control. I probably would do the same. Knowledge should be free to share and the community should help to create new knowledge whenever possible, not stifle it!!
John,
What is the state of the documentation for future developers and/or customizes? Anyone who has PHP background may want to continue making personal changes and customization but without intimate PGV understand this will not happen.
I having been using PGV for a while now… it is something i am happy exists simply because it allows me to create a comprehensible record of my family geneology.
I am really worried about the future of PGV, what can ordinary users do to help?
also…
If there is an issue with PGV encryption method calls, why not make a version of PGV that does not use encryption and a version that does? i know this is likely more work… but would it not get around any sort of "ban".
I always thought of FOSS as some sort of resistance to irrational politics, it seems like "they" might be winning if large projects are disbanded as a response to pressure…
anyway… regardless of what happens i support the project.!
As genealogists and PGV admins/users, we are indeed fortunate to have at our disposal unequivocally the best of the software projects available for our use, at no cost. Additionally, PGV at its current reiteration is sophisticated, snappy and relatively bug free as well as using the latest supporting software. It should live on, as is, for some considerable time. In the now nearly six years I've been with the project, it is a far better piece of software than ever before.
That said, I, like many of you, are sick that we are losing a talented and devoted project manager and that John, whose visions created the impetus to develop the project from the start has little time to contribute. Further, that the previous lightning speed of refinements and addtional features may come now at a snail's pace, is further distressing. However, as the project has previously faced losses and recovered and is today a much better program as a result. Let's be thankful for what we have and hopeful that we can continue with improvements.
Perhaps if we all had been a little more demonstrative of our appreciation of the time and talent devoted by our dedicated developers, more would have stayed. Open Source and Free does not simply mean take without gratitude, but a quick review of most posters here shows little contribution and qualified thanks.
-Stephen
<QUOTE>PGV could be on the brink of its greatest future ever, or it could be heading
towards its final ends. Either way, PGV has had a long and healthy life for
a software project (8 years) and IMO it has done a lot of good for the world,
As a user without any understanding of all that's being discussed here, I sure hope it's not the final end of PGV!!! I never thought I'd get so far into genealogy. And to have a great product to house it in made the difference. Had I stayed with a static product, I would have abandon hope.
Developers: THANK YOU. From this user, your countless hours are appreciated. I respect the reasons of Greg leaving but sure wish he didn't. And, I hope future releases keep coming. SourceForge or not.
As with the passing of a beloved friend, we should celebrate the life, rather than bemoan the loss.
We may regret losing inspired leaders, while at the same time, we can respect the decisions and wish all the best in the future.
PGV is like a child that now virtually has a life of it's own, and will never be "lost," although we may not recognize it's offspring several generations in the future. I'm not a programmer, but I and many others will continue to try to make sure PGV is not "orphaned."
Now, it's time to stop looking in the past, and start looking to the future.
I sure don't get the impression that Greg (and any others) left because they're not appreciated. I'm in awe of their abilities and the amount of time they have devoted to not only creating the product but also giving better user support than any project I know, paid or unpaid. The support level really is unusual, in case you didn't realize it. I could (maybe should) go on about that last point but it's not the point here.
I dabble in php but I don't think I have the ability help much. PGV will eventually need bug fixes and security tweaks - it's inevitable. Hopefully that will happen. Even without major upgrades, I do think we still have a product that will be useful for years. I don't see a better solution, and clearly a lot of other people don't either.
I think it's important that we establish PGV's status with respect to the international restrictions on encryption export. That's what started this, that's at the root of Greg's departure and if we don't address it we will have lost good people for nothing. If the project is legal for export, there is no censorship. If we were writing for the security industry I could see it, but the impression I have is that we are simply talking apples and oranges when we lump PGV in with "encryption software products". My impression is that hashes are not considered encryption in this regard.
And I do realize that for some the real issue is whether anyone can censor anything, but that issue isn't limited to PGV, SourceForge or the USA. I do personally think that restrictions should be placed on transfer of technology that is a threat to national security (think nuclear, but that's still censorship) , and I also think that no one in their right mind would put PGV anywhere near that category. So to me it's a non-issue until shown otherwise. Are the developers who leave this project going to abandon OS projects for good? That's what it'll take for most of them to avoid the core issue.
Given the time and effort that has been invested by so many in PGV, I'm astonished that everyone would give up so easily, moral considerations aside.
I wrote to BIS, who responded: "MD5 is a cryptographic hash algorithm. Items with MD5 only are controlled under Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 5A992 for hardware or ECCN 5D992 for software. Under the U. S. export control regulations, these items require a license for exports and reexports to Cuba, N. Korea, Iran, Sudan and Syria.
Separate reviews are required if your item any additional cryptographic algorithms."
That last bit might include session items - I don't know.
I've written back, asking about the process to get an export certificate. It might be easy, it might be hard. But I'm not going to die wondering.
This might all be a forlorn effort - but if the rules say we must comply, then I fancy PGV is worth the effort.
Anyone else feel this way? (A 'yes' won't cost you anything :-) )
Paul
Australia
Yes :)
Paul,
Were you specifically asking about source code? I think it's treated differently than object code. The conclusion I drew was that a filing (without review) was going to be enough.
First of all, I want to say, thank you Greg for all you patience and time!!! I can not express my self what I feel about you are leaving…
I do straggling too what I should do. 5 years with PGV and now this.
I do believe in Open Source and that it should be open for everyone with no restriction. That is the only reason why I contribute to any open source project at all. Unfortunately, I also feel that I would be a hypocrite if I would contribute to any project that is restricted for any reason.
It's hard to turn my back on PGV after 5 years. I would be happy if PGV would move somewhere else where Open Source policy is respected.
Or if Paul can receive a certification that would be great!
Thank you Paul for your efforts in advanced!
And thank you to all who has contributed in any way to PGV. We did made it to the best online genealogy program ever.
Until some final decision is made in respect to the Open Source policy, I have to signing off,
-Im
US Dept of Commerce advice:
Further to our conversation, you can order the export form at:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/forms/orderingformsonline.html <http://www.bis.doc.gov/forms/orderingformsonline.html>
You need to order form BIS-748P ( its not listed, but I have requested, nonetheless!)
You should also refer to the FAQ page on export controls:
http://www.bis.doc.gov/exportlicensingqanda.htm <http://www.bis.doc.gov/exportlicensingqanda.htm>
The alternative is the paper application, the BIS-748P multipurpose application which is available from BIS. You must use the original form which must be typed. You can order the form by calling (202) 482-3332.
Is there someone I can call if I have additional questions or need specific guidance?
Assistance is available. The Office of Exporter Services has counselors available from our Washington DC headquarters at (202) 482-4811 and our Western Regional Office in California at (949) 660-0144 or (408) 998-8806
I'm probably going to need your OK (and assistance) to fill this in (unless someone else volunteers!), but I'm happy to give it a try.
Paul
Australia
From a relatively new comer to PGV. First I love the program and don't want to see it die.
Thank you Greg for all your hard work, dedication, time and talent given to PGV. I hate to see you leave yet understand your reasoning and respect your decision. I hope this situation resolves in a manner that allows your return without compromising your principals.
Thank you also to all the other contributors to the program and support on the forums.
I'll throw my support or vote to whatever it takes to keep PGV alive and well. Having worked with non-profit organizations over the years I believe in trying to give time, talent or treasure to the cause. I'm sorry I can't write in PHP to help in the talent department. I can't spend the time helping in forums as so many of you do (Thanks again! Support for PGV is awesome!) So for me I'm willing to contribute treasure - money - to the project. That's part of what I like about free, open source. It's worth it to me to voluntarily help as I can financially for those open source programs I use and like.
What I'm trying to get at is it seems to me there's a loyal following here willing to try to do what it takes to keep PGV alive. Could we duplicate this thread to Help and Translations, (can we make it "sticky" on this SF system?) so more users are aware of the current situation? Maybe a user who pops in on just an occasional or intermittent basis will see what's up and provide further options or needed help.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Lou
I would like to stay with project. I very like this project and don't want to see it die.
The first thing I think that should be pointed out is that SF has ALWAYS had the rules that they are now finding it more and more difficult to turn a little of a blind eye to. It is the actions of others that has forced them into HAVING to be seen to be doing something!
I've been with SF since the 90's and re-registered in 2001 after a previous spat on access. Complaints that SF is spineless just annoy me, since THEY are trying to do the best they can, and since a lot of the money supporting SF is American, simply pulling everything out of America is not really practical?
I've indicated my 'feelings' already - sod politicians and more important sod religious fanatics - I'd be quite happy if we could just put them altogether somewhere and let them get on with it. Except they would want to involve everybody else as well :(
I'll be honest - I can't understand what Greg's problem is - after 10 or more years SF had to be seen to be doing something - which they did. The restrictions are simply academic, since in many cases IP blocking is just so random. Now if the core system HAD been set up properly in the first place - but that is another bitch ….. We just ignore crumbs thrown to the politicians and work around the problem? The politicians think they have won a 'war' they simply do not understand ;)
The source code for the encryption stuff that ALL of this relates to ALREADY has license conditions on it relating to the 'export' rules, so even moving it from one country to another does not remove the underlying problem. bitweaver has a modular approach to authentication, so we can just leave out the problem bit if we need to but is there really any point? Legally was it ever created in the US anyway?
Is it time to pull out of SF - yes - for lots of reasons and access is just one. But there is nothing any better to switch to? It is bad enough having to bugger around with SVN for PGV when it simply does not work the same way all the rest of my CVS controlled projects work. My bitweaver port of PGV is on CVS and I work between the two, so I can manage merging of individual changes - something which SVN seems incapable of! PDO is another 'religious war' area - it simply does not work and is no longer supported in PHP. So my own build of PGV has lost it.
In PGV4.0 days I had many of the sections rebuilt as smarty templates. I've had to scrap all of that work due to the changes in the core PGV engine, but the newer structure does make it easier to reo that work, so I can accommodate PGV as modules in the bitweaver framework. At some point I WILL have a fully integrated facility and my own freely accessible system, but yet another knee jurk action is not going to help :(
Good projects do not die, they simply evolve into new encarnations ….. ( God I hate this forum code ! )
First , as i did earlier, i want to thank developers for this essential genealogy software; i used several before and i can say PGV is the best one i ever "used".
For 5 years, PGV is the only software that allows me to update my genealogy data ….. and i'd like to be able to continue with it for many years to come.
Plus, the community here is always pleasant to read (i read every post) and helpful like no other.
I have to say i did not notice fundamental disagreements about moving from SF so i do not really understand why we wonder about the future of PGV today.
I understand and i share Greg's point of view about PGV being blocked.
Is moving not possible, i did not read John was against ?
I really wish Greg and friends come back and if anything, i'm able, to could be done in the future to go one improving PGV in future, i'll do my best.
Long life to PGV,
Thanks to every developper, thank to Greg (i hope to hear about you soon),
Regards,
André
I'm curious about this. What do you mean that it is no longer supported?
The problem with PDO is that it was a good idea at the time, but in order to get something out, it's 'roadmap' was rather restricted. It is only designed to abstract data between databases, and so everything else still has to be handled on a database by database basis. But even the 'data abstraction' still has many gaps, which is why I can't use pdo_firebird with PGV without re-writing every query in PGV :( and the oracle driver has the same problem. Most new development work is being done on the generic drivers, and so MySQL has added functions that SHOULD be implemented in PDO, but are restricted to MySQL. At the present time, there are a number of reasons why the PDO development is stalled, and until someone steps up to the plate to break the log jam, no-one is even bug fixing it.
I spent some time looking at getting the pdo_firebird driver functional, but Interbase/Firebird and Oracle need a level of transcation support that PDO can not currently provide. So I switched back to ADOdb which has been providing a transparent abstraction layer for years, and an using that rather than spending any more time on PDO. When PDO IS improved, it can be used inside ADOdb anyway, and that was the path I was using to try and debug things. The generic Firebird driver, and pdo_firebird running side by side and comparing the differences in results.
There is a list especially for PDO development, but not much is happening …. hence the statement that it is not being supported.
I have followed these recent "PGV Future" related posts with considerable interest. I am a long time PGV user and have a substantial investment in existing and planned PGV based websites. I do not begin to understand the tensions underlying these forum topics and certainly don't want to contribute to them, but I would genuinely appreciate some continuing, informed updates on progress toward resolution and the implications for the project. Thanks.
Tom
Hi,
Wouldn't you know it, I was just working on some crypto stuff for privacy for family history.
I'm not following some of this - if there's a developer exodus over SF about crypto export/blocking, why not move to Launchpad? (see https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/100426).
I use bzr version control in my business and it's much easier for an old h*ker like me with limited brain bandwidth. It's a later generation (or 2) than cvs and svn. In other words, this change is all good (except all change requires some work).
The whole thing must be some misunderstanding - is every https site subject to approval? I thought https uses putatively unbreakable AES crypto. The web can't operate without security. Doesn't almost every session protocol require hashing? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography), MD5 is effectively broken. And most hash algorithms are even weaker. What are they worried about? It's like outlawing skeleton keys.
Personally, I plan to submit some patches soon. I'd rather that blocking didn't happen, but few people in the more repressive countries have internet access, and most of those that do may deserve to be blocked. And in China for instance (I assume it's blocked. but consider it an example) there is widespread knowledge of how to evade blocks. And there's no restriction on copying and redistribution - PGV is GPL. So let it fly, even if there's not a non-stop to everywhere.
Or move to Launchpad, change will do us good. Maybe the forum software over there works.
I also don't understand why there is an existential crisis at PGV. There doesn't seem to be any significant open source competition.
Curiously,
George
After 2 weeks I am finally able to come back and read the responses.
I think the export issues could be legally resolved and any efforts to help resolve those are greatly appreciated.
PGV is a stable and mature project. So it will continue to be downloaded and used. Where this will cause problems is in support and future development. I personally don't have the time to devote to adequately doing either. Perhaps other community members will pick up the slack. I will stick around to perform any administrative tasks and probably dabble in the code as I have time. Anyone interested in doing development please let me know and I will give the appropriate permissions.
I've heard rumors that some developers who have left are starting a new project based on PGV code but hosting it somewhere else. I don't have any of the details.
-John
John
Thanks for the update. There are some of us out here who are anxiously following these proceedings, but don't want to interfere. We (at least I) just want to understand what is happening in order to adapt.
Tom
John
I wholeheartedly agree, as was evident from my previous post. As one of the older (both in age as well as in time here) PGV-users, not only has PGV come a long way, but it has previously faced several developer losses (for various reasons) and spin-offs (GenMOD, for one), only to return with even better code. I'll be here to assist however I can, especially in user support issues, as current coding is no longer my forte.
This would certainly be a key issue in resolving at least one of the most troublesome issues at present. I hope you can coordinate this effort with those that have already attempted to begin the process and do so expeditiously.
-Stephen
It would be nice to be able to report some progress with an application for an export licence, but I can't.
Two weeks ago I went through the process of applying to the US Dept of Commerce for the necessary forms to be sent to me, so I could begin the process of applying.. So far, nothing has arrived. I'll give it a few more days before doing a bit of hassling.
Paul
Australia
John,
I would like to work with theme code and possible add the colors theme' to svn.
Rob