Community mailing list archives

community@mail.odoo.com

Re: ODOO 8 and ODOO 9 Themes - Licenses!

by
Eric Caudal
- 12/19/2015 07:27:51
@Andreas,
You are relatively new to this community and you check our history. This is public knowledge and have been advertised properly through this list and I know for a fact that Odoo has actively sought for all contributors ("best effort").
Odoo has published the list of core contributors and holds a Contributor License Agreement for most of them ("99%") which grants them the authority to perform the change.
You can find the CLA of the contributors directly in github: https://github.com/odoo/odoo/tree/9.0/doc/cla
AFAIK (and I am not here to speak on behalf of Odoo), they had a reasonable number of CLA to perform the change (and again this is public knowledge you can Google).
I personally do not have any doubt about the switch but if you have reasonable ones, please gather testimony and I would suggest to contact directly Odoo sa to confront them before you get a lawyer...

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 7:10 PM Andreas Becker <andi@lisandi.com> wrote:
For software on a proxy server, you can provide an offer of source through a normal method of delivering messages to users of that kind of proxy. For example, a Web proxy could use a landing page. When users initially start using the proxy, you can direct them to a page with the offer of source along with any other information you choose to provide.
The AGPL says you must make the offer to "all users". If you know that a certain user has already been shown the offer, for the current version of the software, you don't have to repeat it to that user again.

Also here it gets quite clear how the code has to be delivered to the users. I was actually wrong and thought that you could deliver it also as printed version. Sorry!

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AGPLProxy

you will find also more marks where they talk about how the source-code gets delivered and it seems that it has to be like described above.



With kind regards,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Con un cordial saludo,
Cordialement,
с сердечным приветом,
เรื่องที่เกี่ยวกับชนิด,
與親切的問候,

 ANDI BECKER

CEO/General Manager LisAndi Co., Ltd.

--------------------------------------------------

LisAndi Co. Ltd., Phuket, Thailand (lisandi.com)
15/21 M.2 Viset Road, Rawai, Muang, Phuket, Thailand 83130

Mobile: +66 (0)81 606 3378
VoIP:   +49 (0)711 50 88788 50
Fax:     +49 (0)711 50 88788 50
Skype:          lisandi
Facebook:     andibecker
Google Talk/Facetime/eMail:  andi@lisandi.com

--------------------------------------------------

This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this email by mistake), please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this email is strictly prohibited. Email transmission security and error-free status cannot be guaranteed as information could be intercepted, corrupted, destroyed, delayed, incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which may arise as a result of email transmission

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Andreas Becker <andi@lisandi.com> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Caudal Eric <caudaleric@gmail.com> wrote:
You cite several texts without sources like people thinking the Holy scriptures ARE gods words... when they are only an interpretation from witnesses.

Nowhere it says that you have to serve the code in the server you use or anything alike. Here is what it says:

> The GNU Affero General Public License is designed specifically to
ensure that, in such cases, the modified source code becomes available
to the community.  It requires the operator of a network server to
provide the source code of the modified version running there to the
users of that server.  Therefore, public use of a modified version, on
a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source
code of the modified version.

That's all: the rest is mere interpretation that wont hold in court.

Unfortunately you are wrong in the last point:

I wanted to see if people really understand the licenses they are using and as you see they are not. It is not at all a mere interpretation of witnesses as those are examples given by those who have actually written the AGPL v.3


here you can find the full text where the examples are.

Therefore, public use of a modified version, on
a publicly accessible server, gives the public access to the source
code of the modified version.

So as soon as you are running a website made with odoo you are exactly at that point where the AGPL hooks in and you have to provide the code of the modules. As aid before you can even print it but you need to link and give the users access to it.

+1 @Eric concerning Jay and the Christmas Theme. This is not the point here but the disappearing of the Christmas Theme made me think a lot after also the promises made by Luke Branch in 2014 to bring back the copy of the Clean Theme and all his derivates based on the Clean Theme never happened since than. And there are more examples.. But Jay as well as Luke are especially two very honorable people with a lot of community sense who provide not only great assistance but publish over and over again their codes for free so that everybody can benefit from it. Exactly this worries me the most that even they are getting targeted with those problems about the very unclear status of licenses.

No I am not using Version 8 because it is AGPL and Version 9 because it is LGPL. Actually until I get the proove I still believe that Version 8 and Version 9 is still GPL v.3!!!

I really doubt that all people who have ever contributed to the core have given their consent! Some of them were perhaps those who are now with Tryton, don't know.

Thanks Eric for your answers as now people seem to wake up at least a bit about licenses. Well it is no polemic. Those are cases which might or cure or which occurred already. I only have given you examples of what could happen when we have no clarity about the licenses.

Have a look to all Odoo Themes - they are not at all containing a license! They show the copy right owner and they show a price tag at the bottom and that's all. But they have been build with an odoo call and they are calling odoo classes to get installed and uploaded, which means they have to be 100% released under AGPL license as the stuff which gets called is licensed under AGPL if we consider that that the GPL v.3 to AGPL v.3 change was a 100% consented move. (I said already that I doubt it)

The current situation with OCA is IMHO nothing else than a way to keep developers at Odoo as OCA seems not at all be a security that people get in serious license and perhaps because of this than later into serious financial problems like described in my post already.

This can happen actually to ANY DEVELOPER and ANY of your and ANY Odoo customer who is using Odoo and who is NOT staying with the base, but adding modified code which is based on Code provided by Odoo S.A.. Just my thoughts and correct me if I am wrong!

We not even can develop stuff as modified works here as long as this unclarity is not cleared.

Since many many years over and over again the license discussion is coming up because of those very unclear situation and the 100% lack of prooves. If Odoo S.A. would have the proove - well they could end all those discussions very fast, but I think they don't have it but make people believe that they have it. 

The first question I get usually asked by our German customers is about the license. I really would like to sell Odoo also to governmental Institutions, NGO Organisations and companies who worry about Free Open Source Software a lot, but in all those discussion there is exactly that unclarity and a huge doubt that AGPL v.3 was actually a consented move already. I am sure also Tyrton people will read here, well they made what you suggested. They forked and kept the fork in GPL V3. I think this is not the best way dealing with that problem. The much better way would be to simply clear up the situation! and even join together again, gather together again and bringing up Odoo to even many more people together without all this unclarity.

If people don't like to discuss that Theme well they can setup a filter and forwarder to their Trash folder with all Thread coming in here with that topic. That is why this Thread is a separate topic but IMHO it really needs to be addressed and not be covered anymore.

Check back the mailing-lists even long time before I stated to discuss this Topic again since some months. You will find tons of Threads which never ever cleared up that situation. There are tons of Threads which asks Odoo S.A. and Fabien for clarity, but until now you never got a proove from them - it is only blablabla stuff.

James mentioned other Themes - the material Theme and the Treehouse Theme. Material Design is actually MIT license (the theme itself). MIT is a compatible license with any GPL v. 3, so no problem. But like James I see that people are changing the disclaimers sometimes when the Theme gets published in the Odoo Store. Why?

People are putting in things they think are correct but they are absolutely not correct at all.

i.e. Material Design Module can be redistributed as many times you wish for no costs and as you probably have realized already it gets redistributed many times through git already. Like other Themes too.

"
The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there."

well here it is at least the clarity about how the source-code has to be provided
this is written here and I am sure they know what they are writing here:


Take as an example also a module in where we all had actually been invited to use that module on the demo site. We asked for access to the source code but until now the developer is not giving us access to it, which is simply not according to AGPL.


Here you see the invitation to access that code which had been released to public but until now there is no access to the source code of that application but instead you can find now a module with same name in the Odoo Store.


This is simply not OK, as everyone has to follow those licenses. Now guess what if you now buy that module and you modify it and redistribute it. Will than also your multiple customers be asked to pay each those 199 Dollar or will you receive at some time a bill for all your distributions even (the stuff what I tried to explain above in my last post with the 10 derivates you sell etc) Well than Odoo can get to be a ruining experience for your customers or even for you.

I would not push that under the table and would address it especially as OCA which makes people believe that they work for the community of all and help that Odoo stays not only accessible but also according the GPL Licenses.

But I don't see much effort that this is really the case.

We like to sell Odoo but we can not sell as much as we want because of that constant unclarity and constantly changing licenses without proove that those changes are actually legitimated.

If there is only a single developer who contributed ever to the code which was under GPL v.3 or later AGPL v.3 who did not agree in changing that license to AGPL or LGPL than this license change is simply not possible at all! It must be a 100% consent! And exactly that I doubt. 

Well perhaps we need to ask people who contributed to the code and did not agree to send a PM, as they for sure not would like to be exposed. But if that is the case all those discussions here would be over forever! It is such as easy! Perhaps Odoo has to be even GPL v.3 again. Who knows?

@Eric it is simply not OK to try pushing those people out of the community who address that topic over and over again. This is actually what is happening nearly every time somebody brings up the license discussion. Very fast the standard suggested solution gets published. "Go setup your fork - rename Odoo to what you like - gather your community and be happy with your license discussion but leave us here alone." This is a very ignoring point of view.

Why you don't help to bring in clarity.

I actually would be happy if Odoo S.A, or Fabien would step in here and say something like this:

Have a look here:
  1. This is the complete list of developers who ever contributed to the core which is now Odoo Version 9 starting from where it was just beginning by Fabien as Tiny ERP.
  2. This is the complete list of consents given by exactly those people mentioned above.
  3. Take it check it, call the people or write to them and all of them will tell you that they have given their consent. If you have another person who thinks that we have forgotten him here on our list so please let us know and we will check it.
  4. We respect the licenses and we will check the Odoo store that comments like on the material theme that you are not allowed to redistribute it get removed immediately as they are not according the licenses of Material and not according to the licenses which have to be applied to any Odoo module
  5. We will change the automated script for creating a module so that it automatically contains the valid GPL license in any module created and working in Odoo and it will also include your copyright notice, company and email for contacting you.
  6. Our Themes can be bought on the app store and they are licensed under the GPL license as they get distributed as modules. We are thinking about a way how we could change this probably in future Theme releases but for now Themes can be redistributed, copied and modified according to the GPL licenses. But please check the content delivered with those Theme modules as Images, Text or JS content might be licensed differently.
  7. From now on we will list always the license on each article site which applies the module app and module theme.
This would give me a much better position to argue with our potential customers to sell Odoo.

@James 
Thanks for the letter to Fabien.


As you can see Eric, I don't want and will not run away with an own fork, no we simply want that simple clarity! Until now this is unfortunately missing!

Please join the discussion if you like to get further license clarity but simply stay out of that discussion or filter out that topic if you are not interested in . Thanks!

Andi



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

--

Eric  Caudal (from my mobile)