Community mailing list archives

community@mail.odoo.com

Re: Odoo v9 Community and Enterprise editions

by
Anders Wallenquist
- 06/03/2015 04:07:18
+1

Den 2015-06-03 07:21, Raphaël Valyi skrev:
<blockquote cite="mid:CAByrsx0zAYuTnBYvFghR6o0pngETXkdQmnXPCCt98vChkg5yMg@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
Hello David,

what is "tyrannic" exactly?
Isn't it to let dozens of the best developers invest to build hundreds of modules for free during 6 years of AGPL, build dozens of localizations with a very hard business model they had to adapt and then not play by the same rules once the market is mature thanks to their work and their customers indirectly giving 80% of Odoo SA revenues?
So you would enter a soccer game and decide at mid-time that it's "tyrannic" you cannot just walk with the ball in your hands, so you start running to the goal with the ball in your hands and claim it's fair. It's not that different... Isn't the tyranny to force the others to play by rules you don't accept yourself and still try to take advantage of their work?

You talk about TRUST. But what do we get from that license change? A hidden master branch since one month now? Is it something that builds trust for you?

Isn't the tyranny rather about the users who will be trapped with proprietary modules while OpenERP had the unique advantage of warranting a user he had all the source code? If some users don't care about open source and if they want a proprietary application with fancy graphics, they already have plenty of choice right? So why corrupt what makes the uniqueness of Odoo under the claim it's for the users who in fact are just the innocent victims around who are not understanding what is going on?

This will just fail and we don't want to fail along with it. May be Odoo SA can afford to fail, but we cannot.

'Course, permissive license allows you to choose. But if you let proprietary compete with open source, of course, you are threatening the open model. Yes Rails is MIT and it has hundreds of mature MIT extensions. But guess what, it's not run by a bunch of greedy puppets gaming an appstore to try to make impossible return for risky VC's investments and it was clear since the start, nobody has been fooled.

And it's nothing like if it was just me Raphaël Valyi telling that. In fact I even came lately to that thread you see. But look the Free Software Foundation statement about the LGPL (not even talking about changing back):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
Isn't that paradoxical to build a strong open source community using an FSF licensing scheme and then deny their values under the pressure of some investors to make some impossible growth of the death in hurry? ( http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/02/gail-goodman-constant-contact-how-to-negotiate-the-long-slow-saas-ramp-of-death/ )

In fact, these are different business models: proprietary modules is about investment and marketing while FOSS is about quality and meritocracy. As I explained several times, I have nothing at all against permissive licenses. Check my ooor connector, it's MIT since 2009 like all my Odoo Ruby framework. But what is wrong is changing in a panic move like it's being done these last months. By changing in the middle, in fact you are just trying to hijack the meritocracy investment to play another new game that will not produce quality. Well one can try of course, but I mean, no surprise with the backfire effect you get...

You say the OCA should change its licensing. But first what gives you the right to give your opinion about the OCA codebase? what did you do for it? Nothing more or less, right? So let the modules authors decide what they do with their work, they probably know better.

How will I look if I go to some Linux core mailing list and say "hey you bunch of hippie coders, can we not get serious about business for 2 secs? Business is when you pay an entry ticket you see... So why don't you just change that hippie GPL license to something more permissive that would allow me and my investor friends to make money more easily when embedding Linux? Cause ya know I contracted a mortgage to start more easily but I'm quite not making it with GPL you see..." That would be ridiculous right? Well sorry but this is just how it sound.

We and many of us gave our CLA for Odoo SA to change the license of the core. It was presented as a way to have startup co-using the framework. Why not.
We just don't switch the license for the modules we did and we need this to be enforced, just like other OCA or any community contributors. We don't accept investor pressure for this, we think these pressure ARE the tyranny.

the OCA is the living proof AGPL can build much more quality than code obfuscation. OpenERP was the living proof an AGPL ERP is very attractive to the market even if may be not to everybody. We don't think selling un-obsucated Python code for and ERP requiring tons of customization is any sustainable model in 2015. If it's about having a service market, let's have a webservice Market compatibel with the AGPL codebase, just like when you use an email provider or a banking service. You can develop quality business without having to throw the baby with the water of the bath. API subscription plans for such services is way more serious than selling broken source code for every button that will be ripped of in all sort of jungle mess, totally destroy the ERP image and drive out any serious community from this appstore, just like people are dropping Sourceforge if you like.

Also, did you simply understand that the OCA cannot relicense it's codebase today EVEN IF IT WANTED TO because it doesn't own all the copyrights? Did you read the OCA conducted a study with a lawyer about this?? How are you going to build something serious on a flawed legal basis? Imagine for a sec OCA brute force its license too (not even talking about the immediate political suicide). Imagine how easy it would be in 4 years for a company like SAP or any big one to explode Odoo and the companies using it with open bar licensing trolls all the way. ERP is serious, you have to be serious with licensing. David, you remember Google against Oracle ended with a billionaire trial for about just 9 fucking lines of API code? Imagine the legal holes you would open if you brute force the license at this scale...

So I don't understand what it's the point about people with nothing to do with the OCA giving their opinion about it.

Once they got the agreement of the contributors (the CLA), Odoo SA can legally change the license of the core of Odoo and nobody here is trying to change that anymore (that discussion was 5 months ago and everybody moved on). If they think they'll have a better proprietary SaaS this way, that's fine. We do think instead we will still succeed better with the AGPL model. SaaS is about a very limited scope (and cheap), our own business model is instead more about doing with standards ERP cannot offer. The two can cohabit but just don't ask to use our AGPL modules along with the non open source ones and violate their license. And if that's a risk of a fork in the long run, well at least that's not the OCA who questioned its founding principles.

my 2 cts.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:36 PM, David Arnold <dar@devco.co> wrote:
Raphael, as I see you arguing fiercly, I get the impression I did not understand some subtelties of the AGPL to LGPL change pronounced here: https://www.odoo.com/blog/odoo-news-5/post/adapting-our-open-source-license-245
Basically Odoo is making the free choice to change licensing on its IP (after the cleanup) in order to strengthen other kind of revenue models in the ecosystem. You mentioned the localization effort in Brasil, which would be protected then (as you choose to do so).
This enables a whole lot of untapped energy in the ecosystem for cases where potential participants do not engage due to license tradeoffs in an environment where they draw different conclusions on porters five forces analysis as AGPL would permit.
So in the end LGPL is less tyrannic and more free than AGPL, as it gives me the freedom to decide to not have to share my ip. (Think of applications in an industries, where a closed vertical module is part of a competitive advantage where thousands of jobs depend on?)
Of course odoo want's to gain complete source IP ownership in order to be free to set license on the core, but i TRUST that they understand that in order to really not proliferate a fork, they must closely watch market dynamics all around the world. I highly appreciate your mentions of different market dynamics in the developing world. But from an odoo stanpoint its a matter of competitive dynamics not to give away influence in those markets by precluding the license for such kind of business models as you imply. Alternatives are always around, as be included a fork of the latest acceptable license.

That beeing said, I would dare to interprete the linked article as an individual authorization after section 5 c) (last sentence) of the AGPL for the part of the code (98%) that is also under complete Odoo IP. In this order of thoughts, you would be able to make use of an LGPL like construct on the 98% of codebase, if you where able to backport the filtering of the 2%. Is that correct interpretation?

OCA should also adopt a more free and less tyrannic LGPL  license. The decisions to open source should not depend on the tyrannic assurance that anybody's future work (which is his own spent time) would have to do the same. In the end, and I think it has been discussed in this thread allutionally, this produces complexity, which at the moment and imho is a serious limitant to community engagement.

Awaiting your comments on where I might be wrong, Raphael.

Best, I hope I did not annoy you with my 2 cents.

El mar., 2 jun. 2015 a las 5:05, Nuria Arranz Velazquez (<nuria@opusvl.com>) escribió:
Rohan, being patronising and calling people "children" will only add logs to the fire. It's hardly helpful.

On 29/05/15 10:54, Rohan E wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL128-W463B97454E675BF3B01632ECC90@phx.gbl" type="cite">
Children, the real solution would be to write up an Odoo license similar to LGPL and an OCA license similar to AGPL but without all the ambiguity and conflicts of interest. Would be cheaper than the loss of productivity caused by this endless debate and annual pre-Odoo gathering drama. 

Subject: Re: Odoo v9 Community and Enterprise editions
From: nuria@opusvl.com
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 13:57:19 +0000
To: community@mail.odoo.com

Hi Fakrudeen,

While it is an issue, I don't see why shouldn't be reminded. And I don't feel that the community expressing their concerns is spreading the wrong message.

That we don't agree with all of them doesn't give us the right to write them off from the rest of the community.

In reality, much has been said. Some of it in anger, some of it in an attempt of reassurance, some of it in ignorance, but plenty of it in logical thinking. I don't presume to know better as to filter what needs to be kept and what to trash.

Of all the things I'm reading, I don't thing there is a wrong message being spread. The message is the right one: Odoo has changed, and people is very concerned.

Regards,
Nuria

On 20/05/15 13:38, Fakrudeen Abbaz wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:3D63BF04-79C0-49B2-95CF-70728E9A4451@gmail.com" type="cite">
Hi Nuria,

I have created this ether pad to summarise the discussions and agree its not full.
its expected all will enter the their current views based on the understanding from different mails.
And i am not against sending mails, but its spreading wrong message to all, moreover its a reminder of the issue too.



Thanks & Regards
Fakrudeen Abbaz, ACMA - ERP Consultant 
Mobile: +97155 66 77 001, skype : fakrudeenabbaz
Sales : 04 295 6615,  Support : 04 295 8986

On May 20, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Nuria Arranz Velazquez <nuria@opusvl.com> wrote:


_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59
Post to: mailto:community@mail.odoo.com
Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe



-- 
N. Arranz-Velazquez
OpusVL Odoo Specialist Team (OOST)
Product Owner

OpusVL
Drury House
Drury Lane
Rugby
CV21 3DE

T: 01788 298 450
W: www.opusvl.com
_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59
Post to: mailto:community@mail.odoo.com
Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe



-- 
N. Arranz-Velazquez
OpusVL Odoo Specialist Team (OOST)
Product Owner

OpusVL
Drury House
Drury Lane
Rugby
CV21 3DE

T: 01788 298 450
W: www.opusvl.com

_______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59
Post to: mailto:community@mail.odoo.com
Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe




_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59
Post to: mailto:community@mail.odoo.com
Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe