Community mailing list archives

Re: community license use in hosted envirnment

Andi Becker
- 05/31/2016 01:47:12
Mr Gellatly you can read more about distributing and coveying and its differences or no differences here

GPLv3 gives “making available to the public” as an example of propagation. What does this mean? Is making available a form of conveying?(#v3MakingAvailable)

One example of “making available to the public” is putting the software on a public web or FTP server. After you do this, some time may pass before anybody actually obtains the software from you—but because it could happen right away, you need to fulfill the GPL's obligations right away as well. Hence, we defined conveying to include this activity.

Since distribution and making available to the public are forms of propagation that are also conveying in GPLv3, what are some examples of propagation that do not constitute conveying? (#PropagationNotConveying)

Making copies of the software for yourself is the main form of propagation that is not conveying. You might do this to install the software on multiple computers, or to make backups.


It is always advised to do homework first before publishing your code and choosing a license to avoid complications or lengthy discussions afterwards

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Andreas Becker <> wrote:


To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.


To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

Is “convey” in GPLv3 the same thing as what GPLv2 means by “distribute”?

Yes, more or less. During the course of enforcing GPLv2, we learned that some jurisdictions used the word “distribute” in their own copyright laws, but gave it different meanings. We invented a new term to make our intent clear and avoid any problems that could be caused by these differences.

So yes, they mean basically the same.


My principles in this regards are: I prefer Support the Editor that actually make code and market than the one that complain and want only "take, take, take" qith no code just "because he can", But you know, that's my stupid position.

It is fine to have such a position but you should never assume things which aren't actually the case ;-) Many here know this already and there are so many ways how you can contribute to a community or a product you are using or even when you are not using it at all, still you could contribute to it.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Graeme Gellatly <> wrote:

Your failure to incorrectly read something then write a massive email of disinformation never ceases to amaze - keyword - distribute (or convey under v3)

To OP - Get a lawyer, this list will just confuse you.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andreas Becker <> wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Dominique Chabord <> wrote:
> No, if you are using LGPL base (v9.0) Agree. Everything proprietary you build on top of LGPLed code is ok. If you don't distribute copies of the LGPL parr, you don't have to publish.

> No, if you are using LGPL base (v9.0)
Agree. Everything proprietary you build on top of LGPLed code is ok.
If you don't distribute copies of the LGPL parr, you don't have to

Sorry, but this is again wrong interpretation of LGPL.

You don't have to publish at all the LGPL Code!!! Please don't let people think that LGPL is the same as AGPL beside the fact that it can be linked from proprietary code. This is complete wrong interpretation.

LGPL has NOTHING to do with AGPL but much more with GPL! LGPL is more or less the GPL version PLUS the possibility to link it from proprietary code.

GPL and LGPL code does not need at all to be published - nor to your users of your software, nor to the public.

AGPL has to be published to its users, when you create a public website this would mean to the public!

I'm afraid this is a cold case now, but even OCA modules can be used,
unchanged or published. You need this mix if you require for example
an AGPL module in your proprietary approach but it doesn't seem to be
in your goal.

This is a wrong interpretation too. Of course OCA modules can be used but they have to be published and even more, if you use AGPL code in the installation the complete Installation has to be AGPL! This is one reason why ODOO S.A. is NOT using AGPL Code in their SAAS and also will try to avoid using AGPL Code prior to rewriting this code in a proprietary way (taking the ideas and build their own)

and ODOO S.A. won't be able to use it because their stuff is LGPL and proprietary!, which would mean as long as your biggest competitor won't be able to use your code, you can create perhaps lots of Hubs and Partners worldwide with Your Odoo Enterprise Like AGPL SAAS Solution.

I am actually against the ones that think Odoo SA must be blocked in any way.
If I use X millions of code from them (Odoo), I am more than happy the use some few thousand from my side. That was not my point on my statement BTW.

It does not matter if you are against it or if those users are using Millions of code you or Odoo S.A. has been creating before and the one is using it even for free as FREE BEER! Free Open Soft ware does not mean Free Beer but it means Freedom and he can use it like you are using their code to. He can sell it like you are selling code you haven't been creating too - or are you paying all those developers a cent? to their pockets? He can distribute it even for free or for lots of money to others. No matter if he provides a much better service than others or you or Odoo. He is free to define the prices! The same way he can block the access if he like but as I stated already we would not be happy the long term with doing that as he would cut out the Community which helped him actually in creating all the code he is using.

It is more an ethical thing he has to figure out with himself.

However, If everything I make and make it public, how do I compete and make money?
Anyone can pick up my code and start hosting it and selling saas. 

That is actually very good for you as long as you keep your code as AGPL. Than they also have to publish their code as I mention already and best of all they will see who actually did the code at first place so it gies you some kind of good advertising (if the code is good of course)

You still can make a lot of money by providing services to your customers - Training, Books, Consultations and even i.e. working for GLG (but be aware they only take qualified people but you could earn about 400 $ US an hour with them) which is probably much more than you would charge your customers an hour. ;-)

The good news with them is that Their customers comes to me when they fail with them.

This is true as more and more customers are looking for companies which provide good and great service to them, so the code you are using not really matters but you need to know how to get that exactly code working the best with your services and products you are providing to your customers. If you don't know about that, better avoid that code as it would waste probably your time and you will loose customers. 

Perhaps you should do first a research in those Odoo Forks of Oddo S.A. - i.e. the just mentioned one of Vauxoo  and of course in those of those Forks who forked them. Compare the code, see which of those code bases really evolves and which of those codes get maintained on a regular base. A great tool doing this is the Githup Repository Updater Script (gitup -c)

Bookmark all SAAS solutions (you only would need those for Version 9 by the way and see who is really doing something!

Setup a cron which will check it on a regular base (i.e. daily) and than check those repository where something happened - There are actually only a few where something happens on a daily base!

So you will get a much better picture on what to use. Check also out those repositories which provide already great scripts for SAAS or even for complete Hosting surroundings. 

Basically opensource your modules allow that some leechers will use it

In Open Source Software products you won't find leechers as the first one might be your self leeching code from others without naming those who actually code it at first place. Leeching is legalised in Free Open Source Software Products under GPL. LGPL and AGPL and nobody requires you to give back as many programmers enjoy that you are using their code and promoting their code - which carries their names and always keep in mind, they would not release their code under an GNU License if they would not feel happy with people who copy, modify, distribute all of their code for free or even for big money. It is up to them to make their choice at first place!

Odoo made their choice at the beginning when they released their stuff under GPL but than they felt that others are using their code and nobody is giving them back something and they feared that others could take over their leading role, so as the owner of the code they were able to change the license to AGPL and all code of people who did not agree got "rewritten" - some kind of modern expression of taking the same idea but using other expressions to get the same stuff running. As they realised that they are ahead of others and that they want to get even more they changed the license again to LGPL but with that change nor they nor others need to give back to the community again like with AGPL. Therefore next license changes will make other changes again. You will never know!

By the way why don't you contact those who already do a lot work on their own SAAS solutions and build an alliance to be a real competitor with the ODOO S.A. SAAS Version. Competition is always good for the market and for innovations!

Post to:

Post to: