Community mailing list archives

community@mail.odoo.com

Re: access to code under AGPL v3

by
SISalp
- 01/16/2016 06:32:02
Thank you Eric for this comprehensive statement.

I pick the two ones which are related to the open point, and still
need clarification imho.
I agree with all others.


these are the 2 points:

> The OCA will not do it if the exclusion of license dependencies is
> respected. The copyright holder might take actions on his side.

> * You can ask the hoster mixing "lawful" or "unlawful" modules with
> Proprietary license for removal if you do not agree with the interpretation
> of the OCA about derivative work.

Which is related to the original question : How a co-author of an "OCA
module" may take actions against someone who's granted the right to do
so by the OCA ?  Does it make any sens ?

If it does
- it means licenses are higher than gentlemen agreements and there is
legal risk for the integrator whatever the OCA says on any OCA module.
The position of OCA is questionable.

If it doesn't
- the author cannot take action or has no chance to enforce anything
because he shared the copyright. In this case your two statements are
questionable.

Thank you.

2016-01-16 2:06 GMT+01:00 Caudal Eric <caudaleric@gmail.com>:
> Hi Dominique,
> This probably means that everybody is free to adopt the position and action
> they deem necessary at every possible level. There are several level of
> liability:
> * Odoo sa, as editor, cannot be blamed for mixing OEE and AGPL as they just
> publish the core software and cannot be liable for others' decision to have
> mixed modules  in this particular case.
> * Developers is the main responsible of copyright "chain of custody" and
> should not make possible to mix both licenses. AFAIK they are one of the
> parties to be blamed in such cases.
> * Odoo sa should take care of the fact that OEE and AGPL modules are not
> depending on each other. They might be liable here as distributor (in apps
> store) of unlawful modules
> * Hosters: they might be liable proposing distributions with unlawful
> combinations.
> * End User: cannot be held responsible of the situation.
>
> Now, who should ask for compliance: for modules in OCA, the OCA itself and
> the original copyright holder(s).



> The OCA will not do it if the exclusion of license dependencies is
> respected. The copyright holder might take actions on his side.
>
> What you, as lawful copyright holder (original or OCA) can and cannot do:
> * You should probably first consult with a lawyer as this is quite complex
> and output/conclusions not that simple ;)
> * You can and should ask the developer of an "unlawful" (mixing licenses in
> dependencies) module to stop distribution and fix the copyright
> * You cannot ask the developer of a "lawful" (clean on dependencies) module
> to stop distribution and fix the copyright because somebody is using it
> improperly.
> * You cannot blame Odoo sa because somebody mixed they software with
> unlawful modules (nobody is suing Smith & Wesson in murder cases)
> * You can ask the distributor of a unlawful module to remove it from there
> repo/store/web.
> * You cannot ask the distributor of a lawful module (ie not mixing both
> licenses) to remove it from there repo/store/web because somebody use it
> improperly.
> * You can ask the hoster mixing "lawful" or "unlawful" modules with
> Proprietary license for removal if you do not agree with the interpretation
> of the OCA about derivative work.
> * You cannot ask the end-user anything (unless he/she is blatantly and
> knowingly breaking the copyright law)
> * You cannot ask Odoo sa to change their license because of the above cases
> ;)
>
> I probably missed many subtleties but this might give at least an idea of
> right and wrong in most important situations (Is there any lawyer in the
> room?)
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:21 PM Dominique Chabord
> <dominique.chabord@sisalp.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Joel,
>>
>> can you please be more precise on the point below :
>>
>> 2016-01-15 15:57 GMT+01:00 Joël Grand-Guillaume
>> <joel.grandguillaume@camptocamp.com>:
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> for sure, but still something is not clear to me :
>> So, in the case a contributor has a strict reading of AGPL regarding
>> his personnal work, and doesn't subscribe to the OCA rule you
>> indicate, then
>>
>> -Answer A : if he contributes to OCA modules, he has to accept the OCA
>> interpretation and change his mind
>> -Answer B : if he contributes to OCA, he can also ask ( to FSF ? ) to
>> enforce his own interpretation of the license
>> -Answer C: he should not contribute to OCA and make his own fork of the
>> module.
>>
>> probably the right answer is D but I don't know.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing-List: https://www.odoo.com/groups/community-59
> Post to: mailto:community@mail.odoo.com
> Unsubscribe: https://www.odoo.com/groups?unsubscribe