Community mailing list archives

Re: FW: access to code under AGPL v3

Camptocamp SA, Joël Grand-Guillaume
- 01/18/2016 10:20:10

The link on the OCA website has been corrected for the CLA  in pdf.

@Andi, side notes:

   * There is no free member in the OCA, everyone individual pay his membership and founders like Camptocamp Akretion or SFL are of no exception here.
   * Copyright and license are different.
   * Every repo and modules in the OCA should have its own license defined (mostly AGPL everywhere currently, like If not, you can make a PR to correct that and it'll be accepted without doubt



On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Becker <> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Bevan Weiss <> wrote:
For the Camptocamp item that says ‘All rights reserved’… this is contradictory to the GPL statement below it.

Thanks Beavan for your answer.

I did not even realise that they wrote "All rights reserved" but you are right. I was actually only looking for the copyright holders in those examples and in many modules listed on OCA the OCA is not listed at all and it is getting now even more complicated after you found that contradiction of a company who is even a longterm free member of the OCA.

It would be great if at least those OCA members could follow their CLA and Statements.

What about simply sitting together and cleaning up the OCA repositories from all modules which have something like "All rights reserved" or no OCA authorship at all. This would make it much easier and clearer for customers to see if in their sites the modules contain the OCA authorship so they might be on a secure site like suggested by Maxime.

concerning github you are also right with a "but" - which gets mentioned on the github page:

You're under no obligation to choose a license. It's your right not to include one with your code or project, but please be aware of the implications. Generally speaking, the absence of a license means that the default copyright laws apply. This means that you retain all rights to your source code and that nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. This might not be what you intend.
Even if this is what you intend, if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service which do allow other GitHub users some rights. Specifically, you allow others to view and fork your repository within the GitHub site.
If you want others to use, copy, modify, or contribute back to your project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license.


copyrights and licenses are actually two separate things and should not get mixed up.

i.e. Odoo 8 is AGPL so every module which is linking to Odoo 8 has to be AGPL too.

So even you are the copyright owner and write i.e. all rights reserved or nothing in it, than this won't respect the license it must have! or?

One example are the Odoo Theme Modules and several other modules (quite a lot) which contain no licenses. OK some have a line which says check the license - and they assume it is the license of the Version this module gets used in.

By the way copyright works different in several countries.

i.e. Iran:
Iran currently does have a copyright law but it only offers protection to domestically created works and is not extended to international copyright works.

or take Thailand:
"The assignment of copyright by other means, except by inheritance, must be made in writing with signatures of the assignor and the assignee. If the duration is not specified in the assignment contract, the assignment shall be deemed to last for ten years."

In other words a CLA would be of zero value after 10 years. Employees working for us still hold the copyright themselves and not the company as after 10 years all those rights would fall back to them "by default". Instead we encourage our developers to publish the code under a GNU License.

Take a Thai developer who signs the CLA and after 10 years takes what is his again, changes the license terms to his needs and all customers which use his piece of code might face problems due to this fact or have to pay a certain fee to continue with his module etc. Especially ERP Systems might run on a long term base.

The suisse copyright law is for sure again different from those.

I think it is quite important that the AGPL License gets mentioned in all OCA modules!

Beside that I think Jairo is correct by suggesting a change of the CLA Section 2.1b! His suggestion into the right direction would show respect to the developers and it is not a big deal to simply ask them before OCA relicense an OCA module to LGPL so Odoo S.A. could integrate into their proprietary codes and perhaps even enhance it their.

By the way the links to the PDF Forms here produce a 404 error -
dito the other one on the same page.



Post to:



Joël Grand-Guillaume
Division Manager
Business Solutions

+41 21 619 10 28