Community mailing list archives

Re: FW: access to code under AGPL v3

AVANZOSC, S.L, Ana Juaristi Olalde
- 01/20/2016 02:10:57

Dear OCA board members.
Please don't feed the troll. Doesn't matter what you say, he will go on and on and on and on....

Contribute is make 1 thing and do not expect more than the benefit for most people, if you give a talk to 20 or 100 persons which are potencial customers you are receiving the benefit of your contribution directly, and inmediatly... this is one of the highest mistakes FSF lovers does, think that sell philosophy is "The best way to win the right to complain".

Absolutely wrong Nhomar. We actually recommended companies and Developers out of that community which share the sense of real Open Source Software.

 Make a PR with the licence change/adjustmen in 1 repository proposing something specific, and if nobody answer in 2 days then paste the link here in the list.... asking for a remember to do the review... (I think you will face a suprise with the speed some thing move in github).

This would mean a whole bunch of pull requests as 99% of the modules perhaps even 100% do not contain OCA in the copyright line where the copyright holder belongs to to make clear that he holds the copyright.

 The point is that Maxime made a valuable point that people should use modules where OCA holds the copyright so that they can avoid future complications. Unfortunately the "Odoo Community Association" gets not mentioned in those copyright tags!

The 'author' tag says nothing at all about the copyright holder. And actually the OCA is not even the actual author itself in most cases as they ONLY hold the copyright.

This brings up confusion which only needs to be cleared up and i can be done quite easily by adding the following part to all OCA modules as follow:


# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
# - Odoo Community Association (OCA) 
# - ... 
# - Author number 2 
# - ...
# - ... 
# This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify# it under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License as
# published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the
# License, or (at your option) any later version.## This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the# GNU Affero General Public License for more details.
# You should have received a copy of the GNU Affero General Public License# along with this program. If not, see <>

{ 'name':'MODULE_NAME', 'version': '1.0', 'category': 'Hidden', 'description':"""DESCRIPTION OF THE MODULE""", 'license': AGPL v.3 'author': "AUTHORS AS LISTED ABOVE UNDER AUTHORS", 'maintainer': 'NAME OF THE MAINTAINER', 'website': 'THE LINK TO THE OCA REPOSITORY WHERE THIS MODULE RESIDES', 'depends': ['COMMA SEPARATED LIST OF MODULES THIS MODULE DEPENDS ON'], ... etc. ----------------------

This will help to get much more transparency and customers, Developers and Hosters could immediately see who is actually the copyright holder instead the need to first write to OCA and ask them for the signed CLA agreement! 

If every contributor on OCA would simply do it this could be finished in one day! Finished sufficiently if they would also remove all parts saying "All rights reserved" as mentioned already not only by me! Simply do it and don't wait for pull requests or what's however.

If you want to see a change, than be the change you want to see! Be transparent! or let me simply know why it looks, like those who complain of this little correction, to make things understandable and clear, seem to not like OCA get mentioned as copyright holder! Why not? If you have no problem with that than mention them as Copyright holder and stop confusing people by posting lots of other names and mentioning OCA only as an author!


To make a Pull request we would need to sign first the CLA, but like some others too we still have serious concerns with that CLA because things are unfortunately not clear in in some point simply trying to work around the AGPL License which gets mentioned in all OCA repositories!


But your suggestion is OK. 

I will put our students on that matter so they can check all modules license texts.

Step 1:
Hopefully at the end we will have a list of all modules who contain "All rights reserved"

This would need to get corrected first as OCA says it uses the AGPL license and in most repositories the AGPL license is present but inside the repository modules hold this passage under copyright! 

Step 2:
We will check all modules for the copyright holders and name those where the OCA does not get mentioned as shown above. And we will ask the OCA to representatives to answer clearly who is/are the copyright holder(s) of those modules. The students could write to OCA what about that so than can practice their English too. (joking just an idea as this is what you recommend)

None of those students will sign the CLA as we can't due to the unclear position! So we can't follow what gets also suggested here:


Let's see how far we come, good idea to stop for the moment here and figure out which modules need to be changed. I hope we can finish that until Friday! We wll post the result than here 

CU - Let's get things done!


With kind regards,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Con un cordial saludo,
с сердечным приветом,


CEO/General Manager LisAndi Co., Ltd.


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

VoIP:   +49 (0)711 50 88788 50
Fax:     +49 (0)711 50 88788 50
Skype:          lisandi
Facebook:     andibecker
Google Talk/Facetime/eMail:


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 Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:07 AM, Nhomar Hernández <> wrote:

We are one of the ones that always fight, I think 80% of things you mentioned are just because you are not familiarize dwith OCA work, and even github, (I can not help with that).

What I can do is:

1.- How to contribute?

You can make a PR with such fixes on licences, and if you want affect all at same time you can write a mini-script and propose as PR in OCA/mantainer-quality-tools.

2.- How is the best way to propose changes?

If it is a change of something specific, you can propose a text and write to the board.
If you follow most of repositories it is a pretty standard way to work as everybody around the world does.

3.- Automate 1 replicate several times! (basic rule)

Review PR, you do not need be a NASA guy, this longs emails simply disturb, go to repositories and without explain 200 lines about licences you can make a PR with Title:

Adjusting licence rule with X standard. that's it.

Follow and read mqt repository, you will find fascinating how easy is to propose such automation, the point is that we have dozens of topics in front of us, it is a matter of time comply with everything.

4.- If you work in so many OS projects what I am mentioned should not be new for you.

5.- "Talk" about odoo to give yourself marketing and self sale your experience is NOT contribute, do not confuse Amnesia With Magnesia.

Contribute is make 1 thing and do not expect more than the benefit for most people, if you give a talk to 20 or 100 persons which are potencial customers you are receiving the benefit of your contribution directly, and inmediatly... this is one of the highest mistakes FSF lovers does, think that sell philosophy is "The best way to win the right to complain".

I mention this because even if you share yous CV if the code is not done, you do not have software which protect "period".

Try to criticize more like this email (which I think is so much better than others) but do not expect that every 2 weeks you open a flame and all OCA board + the bigest contributors answer to you as you have any right.

HElp us to expen such time more efficient.

Make a PR with the licence change/adjustmen in 1 repository proposing something specific, and if nobody answer in 2 days then paste the link here in the list.... asking for a remember to do the review... (I think you will face a suprise with the speed some thing move in github).

Try it, and stop doing flames about everybody, it is more sane and more funny for everybody, anybody here is doing the communitary job Just because they want fame and fortune... we give as much time as you do, then respect in the same manner.

No more answers to this thread, let's work, start to enjoy the flavor of real contributions.

2016-01-19 11:56 GMT-06:00 Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero <>:
Andi, if you don't summarize more, people won't read your "contributions". Reading the first part, OCA is already present as coauthor of the modules, so there's no need to do anything more. If you think so, put an issue in the corresponding place in GitHub (OCA/maintainer-tools), or sue OCA if you want, but don't disturb a general list that has nothing to do with OCA (this list is the Odoo community one). And our answers are already more than kind to someone who is not even member of the association, so please stop mentioning us as if you were a member and know everything about the organization when you don't even want to be a member.


2016-01-19 18:33 GMT+01:00 Andreas Becker <>:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Joël Grand-Guillaume <> wrote:
c) No need to add the OCA as a copyright owner, because we have ask all our contributors to sign the CLA. So it is "defacto" that OCA has a copy of the copyright.

Hi Joel

The problem is that Maxime suggested to check if the site is usingan OCA Module and therefore it would be good to have the OCA mentioned in the copyright part. 

There are international regulations concerning where the copyright word in English language and their owners should get mentioned. I would simply follow those suggestions as otherwise customers or hosters or developers actually don't know if the OCA is a copyright holder or not.

If that file has a standard unique look it is very very easy and fast to read and immediately you would see if the OCA is a copyright holder or not.

A customer won't see and don't know actually who has signed the CLA and as Maxime mentioned it seems that developers still can publish their own versions in parallel to the OCA Version, This would make it nearly impossible for people to see if a module is from OCA or not.

The "author" tag in those modules should not get mixed up with the copyright tag! Those are two different parts. Actually instead of mentioning OCA in the author tag it would be the correct way to mention them in the copyright part on top of the page. If here only those other people and companies get mentioned it actually leaves doubt if a module is an OCA module or not.

I made a suggestion in my last post and it is really not much work to change this in 2 weeks if every developer who has his modules on OCA would simply add the OCA as copyright holder which would make it very obvious for anybody that it is an OCA module!

Best would be to have this standardised structure as mentioned already. I worked many years with TYPO3 and here an "Extension Builder" creates not only the Extension but adds also all other basic data by keeping the look and feel the same. 

Concerning contributions: There are much more ways to contribute to the ODOO univers than coding. Developers need ideas, suggestions, others need promotion or even help in other things. In a working Open Source community there are many ways to contribute or to promote.

Since many years already I am speaking about Odoo and OpenErp on international conferences, do consulting over GLG and other institutions which need my expert knowledge especially in the eLearning/Teaching sector. Also here we are talking sometimes about Odoo. Beside that we met with people here in Thailand who were actually very interested in what we were doing and wanted to learn more about it - Most of them never had hear about OpenERP or Odoo even we have some companies in Bangkok Area as you know. Also here our base was at that time OpenERP and is now Odoo beside TYPO3 or Processwire.

Getting Odoo running at Universities or Schools can bring future customers, unfortunetaly the last license change was quite contraproductive for them and many are afraid to get logged in into an expensive Enterprise part finally. Most of them already experienced what it means to have the BSA standing at your doorstep and offering you a special price for i.e. Microsoft and Adobe Licenses etc. Having an Free Open Source Alternative is a great offer and it worked good in the past years and more and more companies are switching meanwhile.

PRs are often not so easy actually for us to do as our people here are not so good in English proficiency, which would mean I would need to do all of them. Often they are afraid in communicating in English. So finally it is me communicating needs, the same applies to some customers here and by the way also in other regions where they have not such a high level of English proficiency. To make a PR they would also need to know actually how to do that!

IMHO an Organisation like the OCA should have a very clear structure also in there modules, as it will reflect also the organisations itself.

Chaos in those modules "copyright headers" like mentioned already with mixed licenses or with "All rights reserved" and than AGPL or GPL which simply does not work etc. is also not good for an image of OCA.

Therefore I really would recommend to even force all members of OCA to keep the same simple structure in all their modules and give them a choice of licenses if you like but please than add also those license text files to the repositories itself so that people will find them right the way. Don't tell that in all repository is THE license file if it actually does not apply to all modules in that repository!

Having an AGPL file in the repository and than GPL v.3 modules which mention even "All rights reserved" on Top of the file or a timely (mostly often ended) timeframe for copyright, brings up complete confusion which is totally unnecessary if every Member in OCA would simply add always the same header parts in the same structure to their modules. It is actually a copy and paste task!

And as said IMHO It really matters that OCA gets mentioned on first place in all OCA Modules as otherwise the suggestion of Maxime that people should check the modules that they are coming from OCA will get a real hazzle! 

Montessori: Help to do it by myself! Give customers a structure where they can find things easily - which also includes your website by the way!

Concerning the point to have all kind of licenses available for developers I would be very careful with that as it might destroy some of your 4 Freedoms! ;-)


Joel finally - I actually only wanted a clarification concerning those Odoo Themes and we are still waiting for a clear statement from Fabien as he already posted that all modules have to be AGPL i.e. in Version 8 and in all themes dependencies get listed to odoo modules and they get installed because they are linking to an Odoo file which is AGPL in Version8 and which is LGPL in Odoo9.

This was actually the still open question since months. Nothing else!


I think it is also a good way that it got communicated here on the list as it promotes also OCA and shows others who are not in OCA who and what you are and what you are doing and also of course why you need people i.e. the website admin got already mentioned!

I think open discussions are a much better way to promote organisations like OCA than a sterile survey more or less under their own piers!
As a feedback you might also have hear from people who liked or disliked things, which will help you to plan better into the future.

First of all and most important is - I repeat it again!

A very clear and very easy to understand structure and wording so that also customers are happy to come and join here and even give their feedbacks too.

Structure of the Organisation
- i.e. check the "All" list which is very confusing to read as Delegates and members get listed on the same pages. It looks as if they are completely mixed up.

Present anOrganisation Chart somewhere on your Organisation site.
Present a workflow chart how to handle issues and link it to the correct places.

Structure in the Repository
- try to keep wordings - i.e. vertical -xxx was a great step forward imho.
- present the correct license files in full text for those licenses used.

Structure in the Modules itself
- read above and the previous thread what I suggest. Don't leave it up to anybody to do what he likes as this only will produce another big mass and chaos. Bettr is to prepare the surrounding for the developer and providing him with ready to copy paste structure and text blocks for is copyright and license fees.

And most important!

If you are the copyright holder than please add your organisation to the copyright holders section (international standard) and there is no need to add you actually to the authors as you are actually not the authors as OCA ;-) - In other words - don't even try to confuse people who use your modules. Instead help to be as transparent as possible.


Changing "Free Members" on the websote to something else was already a great step forward to bring clarity and transparency, which might have been already there but which got communicated the wrong way.

Finally a reminder! Please remind all developers who write "All rights reserved" into their modules to remove that part as it is a contradiction to the GNU Licenses and many other OSI Licenses.

No Woodoo with Odoo was one of my talks in the past years!

Thanks and have a nice evening


Post to:

Post to:

Saludos Cordiales

CEO at Vauxoo Odoo's Gold Partner.
Nhomar Hernandez

Post to:

Post to: