Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Re: Licence of version 9.0 modules

by
anthony@mindmedia.com.sg
- 15/09/2016 04:56:59
+1

Quoting Frederik Kramer <frederik.kramer@initos.com>:

> Hi all,
> i think this issue can't be discussed enough since it is crucial to the
> core values of the OCA. Although, both licenses are open source, there
> is a huge difference between AGPL and LGPL, whereas AGPL is a strong
> copyleft license and LGPL is a week copyleft one.
> Having said so, given the architecture of Odoo you could built fairly
> few and minor things on top of a couple of hundred Odoo modules which
> are LGPL licensed and built an entirely proprietary product with just
> one proprietary module and a few lines of code and if you just used the
> LGPL as is, you would be perfectly fine.
> The tendency for that is already happening since the very moment the
> base modules of Odoo have been put under LGPL. I personally don't think
> that this will solve any of the problems of our customers that may at
> some point have or will decide to move from proprietary products to open
> ecosystem such as Odoo but it will only shift the scope of the entirety
> of the ecosystem to trying to monetize a sample of modules and create
> what i often call vendor lock-in 2.0 just by attracting and locking in
> some fools.
> The "degree of openness" (given the actual AGPL standard in the OCA
> modules) and the very fact that there are strong technology partners
> around the globe helps the ecosystem to flourish by shareing, not the
> ability to built contemporary lock-ins. Most of the successful OCA Odoo
> partners are successful because they help their customers to transform
> their businesses into digitalized business, hence fueling the digital
> transformation.
> So i think the lock-in of every OCA member and user shall be solely the
> knowledge / expertise / processes and reputation he or she has built
> over time. An no, i am not one of the RMS kind of folks, saying that
> strong copyleft is always the one and only solution.
> So long, kind regards and sorry for the long statement, that some may
> oppose against