Community mailing list archives
Re: Plagiarism in the Odoo App Storeby
IF you do not have the money, the resources, the time and only pure "willing" then to comply the willing the first trhee most be present.
IF the developer decided put something privative he/she is free to do that and he must be protected/supported byt everybody as much as we protect the freely available ones.
IF you want something freely available publishing something which was done with privative intentions is not legal, you should do your version by yourself.
The AGPL license, on the other hand, treats deployment of websites and services as “distribution”, and compels anyone using the software to run a service to also distribute the modified source code.
For example, as a service provider you can release the code to your service as AGPL, knowing that no-one else can run a competing service without sharing their modifications with you. In this way you can ensure that all services based on the code have effectively the same level of capabilities. This makes sense when thinking about the distributed social networking projects I mentioned earlier, as there is greater benefit in having a consistent distributed social network than having feature differentiation among hosts.
By 2014, Kuali had demonstrated open-source ERP systems could be built and operated, with total Kuali membership approaching 100 institutions.[
Both versions of the AGPL, like the corresponding versions of the GNU GPL on which they are based, are strong copyleft licenses. In the FSF's judgment, the additional requirement in section 2(d) of AGPLv1 made it incompatiblewith the otherwise nearly identical GPLv2. That is to say, one cannot distribute a single work formed by combining components covered by each license.
By contrast, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 each include clauses (in section 13 of each license) that together achieve a form of mutual compatibility for the two licenses. These clauses explicitly allow the "conveying" of a work formed by linking code licensed under the one license against code licensed under the other license, despite the licenses otherwise not allowing relicensing under the terms of each other. In this way, the copyleft of each license is relaxed to allow distribution of such combinations.
If we look back at the four principles of open source that I used to start this article, we quickly can see how AGPL3 has allowed clever commercial companies to subvert the goals of Open Source to their own ends:
Chuck’s third point, that AGPL enables predatory lock-in, is an interesting one. There is nothing to prevent anyone from forking an AGPL project – it just has to remain AGPL. However, the copyright owner is the only party that is able to create proprietary extensions to the code without releasing them, which can be used to give an advantage.
However, this is a two-edged sword, as we’ve seen already with MySQL and MariaDB; Oracle adding proprietary components to MySQL is one of the practices that led to the MariaDB fork. Likewise, if Kuali uses its code ownership prerogative to add proprietary components to its SaaS offering, that may precipitate a fork. Such a fork would not have the ability to add improvements without distributing source code, but would instead have to differentiate itself in other ways – such as customer trust.
The copyright notice should include the year in which you finished preparing the release (so if you finished it in 1998 but didn't post it until 1999, use 1998). You should add the proper year for each release; for example, “Copyright 1998, 1999 Terry Jones” if some versions were finished in 1998 and some were finished in 1999. If several people helped write the code, use all their names.
You should also include a copy of the license itself somewhere in the distribution of your program. All programs, whether they are released under the GPL or LGPL, should include the text version of the GPL. In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING.
If you are releasing your program under the LGPL, you should also include the text version of the LGPL, usually in a file called COPYING.LESSER. Please note that, since the LGPL is a set of additional permissions on top of the GPL, it's important to include both licenses so users have all the materials they need to understand their rights.
If you are releasing your program under the GNU AGPL, you only need to include the text version of the GNU AGPL.
If you have copied code from other programs covered by the same license, copy their copyright notices too. Put all the copyright notices together, right near the top of each file.
It is very important for practical reasons to include contact information for how to reach you, perhaps in the README file, but this has nothing to do with the legal issues of applying the license.
The copying permission statement should come right after the copyright notices. For a one-file program, the statement (for the GPL) should look like this:This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
If you are releasing your program under the GNU AGPL, and it can interact with users over a network, the program should offer its source to those users in some way. For example, if your program is a web application, its interface could display a “Source” link that leads users to an archive of the code. The GNU AGPL is flexible enough that you can choose a method that's suitable for your specific program—see section 13 for details.
There is no legal requirement to register your copyright with anyone; simply distributing the program makes it copyrighted. However, it is a very good idea to register the copyright with the US Registry of Copyrights, because that puts you in a stronger position against anyone who violates the license in the US. Most other countries have no system of copyright registration.
It's wise to ask your employer or school, if any, to sign a copyright disclaimer for the work, so they cannot claim to hold it later. Below is a sample copyright disclaimer; just alter the names and program description as appropriate:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program “Gnomovision” (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
<signature of Moe Ghoul>, 1 April 1989
Moe Ghoul, President of Vice
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.
We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't claim to own the contributions.
Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes in the public domain.
If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please contact <firstname.lastname@example.org> if you want more information.
Nhomar,LGPL licensed modules can be distributed freely regardless of whether you had to pay the original writer or not. That writer had the option of putting an LGPL open source license on their code, or not, and they chose to make it open source in the full knowledge that the code could then be distributed.James2015-11-04 20:52 GMT-05:00 Andreas Becker <email@example.com>:In addition to that it is also not a violation if somebody publishes AGPL v.3 / LGPL v.3 or GPL v.3 Licensed Modules, Templates etc. which have been sold or offered in a shop for even lots of money, again for free with free access for everybody with even no changes to the software at all! This could be quite useful i.e. if someone wants to get the open source community involved again in further developing those softwares, but does not have his own resources to do that, nor the financial resources to do that. Also it is usually useful in doing that if you want to speed up development and further improvements! Especially useful now as Version 9 just came out and it would be very useful to get things done and to convert Themes and Modules from Version 8 to Version 9. If those are offered for high prices before you can start adjusting the code this will take much much longer times - or it will be done behind hidden doors and republished much later than it would be useful for all in the community.What you describe in this paragraph is the definition of plagiarism.IF you do not have the money, the resources, the time and only pure "willing" then to comply the willing the first trhee most be present.IF the developer decided put something privative he/she is free to do that and he must be protected/supported byt everybody as much as we protect the freely available ones.IF you want something freely available publishing something which was done with privative intentions is not legal, you should do your version by yourself.Regards.