Community mailing list archives

community@mail.odoo.com

Re: access to code under AGPL v3

by
Camptocamp SA, Joël Grand-Guillaume
- 01/15/2016 09:51:50
Hi,


Just want to be clear about the OCA position, as stated in our blog post about it (https://odoo-community.org/blog/oca-news-1/post/oca-odoo-meeting-on-licenses-21) :

We agreed that an end-user can run Enterprise Edition Proprietary modules and AGPLv3 modules together if said modules do not depend on each other and depend only on core LGPLv3 modules. In other words, any module must be compatible and respect the license of its dependencies defined in the “depends” key of its manifest file.

That being said, remember that the following statement represents the position of the OCA regarding its code base. Every contributor and developer is free to make his/her own opinion and choices regarding his/her own contribution and developments.

About your specific interrogation:

 * you're right you can't ask to have the proprietary code released under AGPL v3
 * the OCA contributors keeps all his copyrights (it gives a copy to OCA, no more). So every OCA contributors can still make all the choices he may want about his work.
 * licenses is a contriburos choice and the OCA will accept any OSI license under its umbrella

Regards,

Joël



On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Dominique Chabord <dominique.chabord@sisalp.org> wrote:
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

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




--


camptocamp
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
BY OPEN SOURCE EXPERTS

Joël Grand-Guillaume
Division Manager
Business Solutions

+41 21 619 10 28