Members mailing list archives
Re: OCA's statement on the announced change of license of Odooby
may be I am the only one, but I don't like AGPL because it put duties on the organisation running the software. You buy a 2$ mug from a shop and then you can ask the complete source code a the webshop, same for any employee working a day in a company. These are things customer don't want and IMHO most integrators don't explain it to their customers because if they do so, the customer run away...
This licence obligations without commercial action about the software itself makes also Odoo in open-source licence (I mean without enterprise private modules incompatible with use of any software patent / copyright which is again a problem.
The repeated argument is about somebody making money with the software without contribution to the communitty. I thing it is more a human-psychology issue than anything else and symptomatic a non assumed open-source model. May be somebody will make a fortune writting a book with LibreOffice... So what ? I make money using Python and Postgres... So what ?
I respect a lot those who contribute their code and work, one way or another. On the other side, a lot of these contributions on the Odoo eco systems are unfinished, unsupported work. I think commercial offering will increase availability of more finished solutions and those who have such solutions will finally be enabled to advertise them instead of hidding themselves. In a way this will make the 'odoo market' more transparent and more efficient.
Please note that having the framework LGPL (or similar business friendly licence) is the only way to get it seriously face to face with other frameworks.
For that reason, I fully support the licence change. Odoo keeps the software open-source and accepts that others are also making business with it. This is true open-source spirit. I think it is the best move concerning the business model since I follow the product and it does not exclude cooperation like the OCA projects.
I did not like the idea of a restricted distribution of the latest version because it would slow down adoption of the product. However I can live with commercial products by Odoo or others. For example mobile apps, connectors, wysiwig report engine etc I am sure this will provide a lot of nice solutions that cannot be easily founded by a project to a single customer.
Finally, each contributor may have his opinion about how he wants to share his work. But I think AGPL modules on top a LGPL framework, mixed with proprietary modules can only make good to layers wallets. For that reason I think the only right solution for open-source contributors willing to ensure the open-source aspect without impeding the usage of its contributions (thus assuming the open-source model completely) is to use the GPL licence.
Have a great week-end !
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:12 PM, StéphaneWirtel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 6 Feb 2015, at 17:53, Alberto Barrionuevo wrote: > On 06/02/15 16:27, StéphaneWirtel wrote: >> On 6 Feb 2015, at 15:03, Luc Maurer wrote: >> >>> Sorry, Stéphane but why "Bad for the community" ? >>> As LGPLv3 is compatible with AGPL the community has the choice ! if >>> you want to protect your dev than you choose AGPL and if you are >>> more >>> "open" then you choose LGPL => where is the problem ? >>> A+ >>> Luc Maurer >> If I am a company and I don't want to share my code, I won't use the >> AGPL. >> >> Is it right? > But if you use modules/code that are AGPL and you develop on top of > them, you are forced to license that code under AGPL. If your module is just a leaf in your dependencies graph, you can rewrite it with an other license. And keep the code closed. And about your question, I don't know :/ Hope yes. -- Stéphane Wirtel - http://wirtel.be - @matrixise
Camptocamp France SAS, Alexandre Fayolle