Community Mailinglisten Archive
Re: Odoo v9 Community and Enterprise editionsdurch
Here is a summary of everything that has been said in this thread, balancing the PROs and CONs:
On such a complex decision, you should not focus on a detail but balance all elements in the big picture.
For me (excluding Odoo SA's interest from what I think) :
- interest of the end-users and alignment are the most important
- Elements related to change or fears (SAP's threat, leachers, abuse of code) are less important because those guys don't care about OCA's license.
But that's just my point of view and I understand some may have a different point of view. By doing the above document, I just make sure that everyone takes a decision for his own module based on the all impacts and not on a single argument.
Hope it helps,
 And I am not the only one in the world to think that. AGPL is only used in <1% of the open source software and MIT is growing in trend https://www.blackducksoftware.com/resources/data/top-20-open-source-licenses
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Joël Grand-Guillaume <email@example.com> wrote:
Dear Community, Dear Fabien,
What a hot topic ! I will give my personnal point of view here.
1) The licenses
AGPL is the only one protecting the OCA contributors from seeing their job taken for paid apps. I'm also in favor of this license (for the reasons given by Sebastien Beau, and I share his thoughts on this topic). That's why OCA recommand to use this license instead of LGPL. This has nothing to do with being compatible with your paid apps or not. It's a matter of the contributors interests.
2) Odoo core + Enterprise VS Odoo core + OCA
We all want everything to be compatible from the begining. Remmeber the talk we had when you changed the license to LGPL. You wanted MIT + NDA in the first place, and that would have made OCA modules incompatible with the core. We had strong discussion on this topic and finally a compromise with LGPL was was found: the less harfull choice for everyone.
If there is any way out to protect our contributors interests as now and be compatible with paid apps we all agree to to so. But I will never vote among the OCA board in favor of anything that will weakened the OCA community or contributors interests. I prefer not being comptabile with paid apps, even if I agree it's a shame to have 2 parallel worlds... But I remind you that you take this choice, we only continue the original AGPL one here.
3) OCA CLA
From a legal point of view, it is true that all contributions made under the OCA CLA can be relicense by the OCA under any OSI licenses (e.g. LGPL). But it is also true that we don't have the right to do so for all the code contributed before that.
The OCA CLA is here to protect our contributors in case of iligitimate use of their code (if we have no CLA, we can't defend our contributors in court, because we'll have no right on the concenerned code). This CLA was never put in place to change the contributor license once (at least this is the reason why I've suggested it).
4) Changing the OCA modules license
Now you're asking the OCA to change the license to LGPL. Let me remind you and everone here that the OCA accept ANY OSI LICENSE (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical). The OCA was built with that in mind from the begining and you can blame me among others for this choice.
IMO, that's not up to the OCA to decide the license under which to release a module. The OCA is here to build a great community, promote the collaborative work in an open source manner. The OCA is not here to dictate the license a contributor should use or not. We can make recommandations, not more. I will never vote among the board to change a license without having the contribuors requesting it in the first place !
As a conclusion:
* Contributors can chose to publish their modules under any OSI license within the OCA. they can chose LGPL if they want to be compatible with your paid apps or follow our recommandation and take AGPL or take any other OSI license of their choice.
* The OCA won't recommand a license we found armfule for our contributors, we prefer to be harmfule for Odoo SA. Of course, if we had the choice, we'll prefer to walk hands in hands. That was always our will and you can't say we didn't make efforts in that sense this past year ! Currently I believe AGPL is the best license for our contributors and I'm sad it creates a divergence. If I could, I would do it differently and I'm open to suggestions here. But OCA can't relicense all OCA modules to LGPL, it is the fundamental of the OCA to respect the contributor's license choice.
* The OCA will see with a specialized lawyer if AGPL viral apsect applied in the present case:
- Odoo core as LGPL
- OCA as AGPL
- Enterprise module as private license
=> It seems that may be, if no OCA module extend a private apps AND no private apps extend OCA module, the viral clause of the AGPL doesn't apply. If that's true => End of the story, there is no more trouble. Note that you should have see to that before starting this thread ;)
Keep in mind that we're not keeping AGPL to harm Odoo. We always look to take the decisions that favor the whole ecosystem. We're all part of it ! But sometimes the price to pay is too big and here it is the case IMO. It is sad thought.
Let's wait the laywer feedback before going further on this topic.
@Jordi : You actually can release your module under the OCA with an OSI license and publish it under another of your choice if you want (even closed source if you want). The current OCA model allow that and this will never change.On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Anders Wallenquist <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:Den 2015-05-11 15:57, Wouter Tebbens skrev: > > That said, personally I like Alan Lord's idea of making all sources of a > running server available through the about window. I think its more productive to point to the github-repository. If its an end user they can ask a consultant to help them to use the code, if its a developer they can join in and help to develop the code. If its a lurker - fine let them peek. regards, Anders > best, > > Wouter > > On 05/11/2015 03:10 PM, Antony Lesuisse wrote: > > I am curious about your deployements, do you mean that the Odoo instance is > > always running on the intranet only inside the building of the company ? Do > > the employee access the instance from outside the office using a VPN to > > connect to the intranet. > > > > On 05/11/2015 12:55 PM, Anders Wallenquist wrote: > >> Den 2015-05-11 11:13, Stefan skrev: > >>> On 11-05-15 10:47, Alexandre Fayolle wrote: > >>> > This is BS. > >>> > > >>> > I don't know specifically about Akretion. As far as Camptocamp is concerned: > >>> > > >>> > 1. our customers' instances are typically not reachable over a public IP > >>> > address. > >>> > 2. the customer specific code is released under AGPL to the customer. If > >>> > he chooses to change partners for maintainance, he has the source code, > >>> > and the new partner is allowed to modify and redistribute the code > >>> > >>> Same for Therp. > >> > >> Same for Vertel > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Stefan. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59 > >>> Post to: mailto:email@example.com > >>> Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59 > >> Post to: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > >> Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59 > > Post to: mailto:email@example.com > > Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59 > Post to: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe >