Community mailing list archives

community@mail.odoo.com

Re: access to code under AGPL v3

by
SISalp
- 01/14/2016 10:27:46
Hi, Leonardo,
thinking now from your stand point, I think we share the same opinion.

There is no right to get the proprietary code to be divulgated indeed.
Actions might be :
- warn the author of the AGPL piece,
- the author can demand that his code is no longer used

and if he shares his copyright with OCA, there is little the author
can do, I guess.


2016-01-14 16:12 GMT+01:00 Leonardo Rochael Almeida <leorochael@gmail.com>:
> Hi Dominique,
>
> I understand the point of AGPL (even if my terminology might not reflect
> exactly what you explained below).
>
> My point is that the only person who can do anything about a perceived AGPL
> violation (including the invalid distribution of proprietary software in
> combination with AGPL software) is the owner of said AGPL software, and that
> the only recourse they have is to sue the violator for breach of copyright
> (or author's rights).
>
> And even if they sue, they might still not get the non-AGPL portions of the
> software re-licensed as AGPL.
>
> So asking for "access to code under AGPL v3" (the whole point of this
> thread) is absolutely useless.
>
> I wish it wasn't, but it is.
>
> Regards
>
> Leo
>
> On 14 January 2016 at 12:27, Dominique Chabord
> <dominique.chabord@sisalp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Leonardo :
>> sorry, but I think you miss the point regarding AGPL.
>> AGPL can be used over an LGPL only under some conditions (refer to
>> APGL). This doesn't mean LPGL license changes, but all LGPL must
>> follow the AGPL tules, else, you cannot combine AGPL with GPL. It
>> means it is a violation of AGPL module license, not of the LGPL part.
>> And for sure, if you read AGPL strictly, combining with proprietary is
>> just forbiden. This is why, OCA make a special statement to make
>> Enterprise compatible with OCA AGPL modules.
>>
>> 2016-01-14 14:36 GMT+01:00 Leonardo Rochael Almeida
>> <leorochael@gmail.com>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Sorry for the long post and for not offering a TL;DR version.
>> >
>> > I'm not a lawyer.
>> >
>> > Heck, sometimes I can't even spell "lawyer" without the spellchecker
>> > complaining.
>> >
>> > But it seems to me many people here are mistaken about what "powers" a
>> > license has.
>> >
>> > I'm not going to get into the details on what the AGPL does or does not
>> > require, when you distribute, or allow access, to your software to a
>> > third
>> > party.
>> >
>> > But one thing is for sure:
>> >
>> >  - A license only has the power to allow things that are otherwise
>> > forbidden
>> > by copyright law (or author's rights laws, depending on country).
>> >
>> > In particular, it also means:
>> >
>> >  - A license for software X, has no power of forcing a change of license
>> > in
>> > software Y. It only has the ability of saying: "You cannot distribute
>> > software X along with software Y if software Y has a compatible license.
>> > Otherwise you cannot distribute software X at all".
>> >
>> > And this only happens because, otherwise, you would be forbidden from
>> > distributing software X completely, in the absence of its license.
>> >
>> > So what happens if someone distributes (or performs to an external
>> > audience,
>> > in the case of AGPL) software X along with software Y, even if software
>> > Y
>> > has an incompatible license?
>> >
>> > Is software Y forced into the same license as X?
>> >
>> > No.
>> >
>> > The only thing that happens is that the persons who distributed software
>> > X
>> > against the permissions of its license will have exposed themselves to a
>> > lawsuit from the OWNER (and only the owner) of software X.
>> >
>> > Nothing more, nothing less.
>> >
>> > IF the owner of software X sues the infringing distributor, then the
>> > owner
>> > of software X MIGHT decide to accept the release of software Y under a
>> > compatible license as a form of settlement IF the infringing distributor
>> > is
>> > willing to do it.
>> >
>> > Or he might not.
>> >
>> > And the if the infringing party is not the owner of software Y, they
>> > cannot
>> > even offer that as a form of settlement. And they're not forced to offer
>> > it,
>> > EVEN if they are the owner of Y.
>> >
>> > The only thing that they are required to do is stop distributing (or
>> > performing), the infringing combination (and pay money to the owner of
>> > software X, if the owner demands it).
>> >
>> > In any case, NOTHING forces software Y to change licenses just because
>> > of it
>> > being distributed (or performed) along with software X.
>> >
>> > If YOU are the OWNER of an AGPL software package, and you find that YOUR
>> > package is being "performed" along with non-AGPL software in a server to
>> > which you have access but are not the owner, then please go ahead and
>> > sue
>> > the owner of the server.
>> >
>> > Otherwise, please stop assuming things that the AGPL cannot do, and stop
>> > demanding people to give you access non-AGPL source until you have a
>> > legal
>> > reason to sue them.
>> >
>> > In time, I'm not defending ODOO S.A.
>> >
>> > Personally I think that a mixed opensource/proprietary environment only
>> > leads to an unnecessary arms race where the open source developers have
>> > to
>> > keep re-implementing the proprietary code with a lot of work hours being
>> > wasted on both sides, and an increased risk of forking.
>> >
>> > I also don't buy their argument that "themes are art, so are not subject
>> > to
>> > the same terms as the software" because, in most countries, art and
>> > software
>> > are covered by mostly the same copyright (or author's rights) laws.
>> >
>> > But I do wish people would spend their time and communication bandwidth
>> > on
>> > more productive endeavors than discussing licenses.
>> >
>> > And if they really, truly, wish to discuss licenses, then that they do
>> > so
>> > with their lawyer, not with a public mailing list.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your time, and sorry for the long post.
>> >
>> > Leo
>> >
>> > On 14 January 2016 at 09:34, Cocopapa <cocopapa@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Interesting to read!
>> >>
>> >> Most interesting is the still unanswered question of Martin after
>> >> Fabien
>> >> wrote the following:
>> >>
>> >>> > 2/ Is it correct that the code to be provided access to, would be
>> >>> > only
>> >>> > the modules used publicly on the website (and not a module that is
>> >>> > used
>> >>> > internally - only in the backend)?
>> >>> No, you must provide ALL modules. (as they have to be AGPLv3 too)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It would indeed mean that also Odoo 9 has to be AGPL v.3 Martin as soon
>> >> as
>> >> a module gets included which is AGPL v.3 and that is usually the case
>> >> from
>> >> our experience!
>> >>
>> >> Fabien you seem to be knowledgeable with AGPL v.3 perhaps you can
>> >> explain
>> >> that a bit more. Thanks!
>> >>
>> >> Cori
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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