Community mailing list archives
Re: A-Z Reporting Tool (Developed By TechOrg) // Promotionby
I will forward it to my technical team, to handle this case,
Thanks for sharing it,
Could you please send me the scenario which lead to appear this message.
On 25 Nov 2015 20:34, "Carlos Paz" <email@example.com> wrote:
Your app is bugged Mister,On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Ahmed Elsaka <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Which label? please more details ...
Ahmed ElsakaOn 25 Nov 2015 17:18, "omar frikha" <email@example.com> wrote:how to change the label dimensions?2015-11-25 8:03 GMT+01:00 Ahmed Elsaka <firstname.lastname@example.org>:Friends ,What I would like to hear from your side is your feedback :)what is the added value of A-Z reporting module from your view (ignoring licences now)? Do you have a suggestion?..etcNote:-I had received many many requests regarding A-Z Reporting tools version 9, So IT WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON.On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Andreas Becker <email@example.com> wrote:Hi Ahmedsimply apply to the regulations of AGPL v. 3 and publish a link to the sourcecode as anybody else using that module and providing a service has to publish a link to the version he is using including all modifications he perhaps has made to that module bu himself like Ahmed has to publish the source code of that module after he provided a service to the community.It is not a stupid rule by the way. It was simply a necessary rule in addition to GPL v.3 (actually GPLv2 - AGPL v.2) after so many Service providers took GPL code and did not publish their modifications again to the community. So the original developers were not able to benefit from this work like the one who provided a service with this module. The AGPL is a win win solution as the one who has created a module will be able to benefit also from all modifications from that module.This is also why I really recommend to every developer to publish their modules under AGPL v.3 and NOT under LGPL v.3 - If you will publish it under LGPL v.3 the code can be integrated into proprietary code. where you won't have any access as original developer anymore. For example. You are developing a module with nice functionalities and ideas from you in it and you publish it under LGPL v. 3 Than i.e. Odoo S.A, is taking that module - your work - modifying a bit or even not that - and simply integrating your work into their proprietary module. You won't see what this module will afterwards be doing and you can't even check it as it would be encoded, crypted more or less unreadable. Those modifications Odoo S.A. perhaps than had made to get your code integrated into their proprietary part don't need to be published under the LGPL v.3 like it would be necessary under the AGPL v.3.At the end you will be the B I G looser of that game and the Full House win will go to Odoo S.A.You can only avoid that when you still publish your modules and additions under AGPL v.3! I hope everybody who is developing for an Free Open Source Product like Odoo and who would like to secure also in future his work (which will secure his job too) is aware of that.Beside that it would be recommended to publish the code even under the copyright of the FSF as than they will take actions against violators and you would strengthen the Free Movement! - Free not like Free Beer but Free as Freedom!@AhmedSo as you have published and provided a service to the community please post a link to the repository with the sourcecode and everything is OK! You won't loose anything I am sure, as the copyright will still be staying with you. You can even multiply your effort by getting your module on OCA and than open it up for other developers to contribute and improve your code. This will reduce your workload and you have time to find even better customers with this module after improvements. As said it is a win win solution. You could also setup code sprints which you will organise and which would give you better contact to other contributors to. Beside this you will be able to be benefit from all derivates based on your module as you can simply be able to access all their modifications. So your service could stay always at least at the same level of technology like theirs. This is what AGPL is all about! and this is not stupid but very very good and it is community oriented! "Inspire to share!" = 100%.Only to make it clear, if you have code which you develop and you don't publish it or you don't provide a service, you can keep it even under the AGPL unpublished as long as you want but as soon as you provide a service you have to - this is a legal MUST -publish the link to the sourcecode.Thanks for understanding and even a bigger Thank You for sharing your module to the public community!http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html - concerning Verion 8 AND concerning Version 9 if you strip of all Modules and take only the core as than the majority of code is still AGPL!!!About the DANGER of publishing code under LGPL v.3read also about that here:If you want to learn more about how to work with AGPL v.3 properly I would recommend to everybody to read a bit more about the Kuali ERP which is even having something like a vendor lockin! and Kuali is AGPL v.3. and an ERP which is a great comparison to Odoo.http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2014/09/10/locked-into-free-software-unpicking-kualis-agpl-strategy/This is one reason why OCA should actually start settingup an own branch of odoo core (only) under AGPL as the majority of code is AGPL in Version 9 without the modules. and than maintaining this keeping all Odoo S.A, modules like any other module as an optional addon to that AGPL v.3 core. Here of the bad points mentioned on the sorryopenerp site concerning unlawful data collection without prior consent of the owner of that data could be eliminated and everybody would have an Odoo Product he could instantly trust and start working even without the need to remove all branding and other time consuming stuff. And of course Odoo S.A, would be invited to contribute to this Titanium Branch of OCA which soon would be replacing the Enterprise discussions as companies would use a safe and secure and accessible, lightweight "Tiny" Leightweight branch rather than the heavy phoning home branded Enterprise stuff with proprietary codes inside.On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Alberto Barrionuevo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:On 25/11/15 02:07, Dominique Chabord wrote: >> AGPL is not saying that you have to deliver the code for free, just as >> free (AGPLed). > > I'm afraid it does, thus my and Steephan's warning, regarding version > 8, as soon as he publishes it for a try. > Aren't you confusing with GPL ? It seem my (bad) memory mixed both. :-) //A.