Members mailing list archives

Re: Licence Change of OCA Modules

Camptocamp France SAS, Alexandre Fayolle
- 05/03/2015 07:38:08
Thanks for doing the research. And thanks for raising the question here.

Disclaimer: I'm speaking here as a community member and contributor, which happens to be OCA board member and has witnessed the debates of the past months. The opinion is mine (and is the one I will defend at the board when the question is discussed), but not the position of the board (and I don't know the position of the board, because the question has not yet been discussed.

I trust the board to take wise decisions regarding the Open Source code which has been entrusted to the OCA. The current composition of the board has a great balance of "entrepreneurs" profiles and "open source hard cores" profiles which ensures that the interests of the vast majority of members is taken into account when making decisions. It is the responsibility of members during the board / delegates election to make sure this balance is preserved.

Regarding any chance of a license change, you have to be aware that the OCA does not have a CLA for all contributions maintained under the OCA umbrella. I still have to make a script to check the repositories. So while the current bylaws allow the board to unilaterally relicense everything under e.g. ASL or X11, it cannot do this for a portion of the addons which are "tainted" by non CLA-'d contributions (side note: this is why we, the board, were much relieved when Fabien finally announced his decision to keep a GPLv3 compatible license, because it meant we did not have to consider a license change at all, which would have been time consuming, inflamatory and probably a cause for a huge loss of contributions to the OCA).

Regarding the vote at a general assembly, I don't thing the bylaws include the notion of a general assembly. There is a Delegate Members assembly. I'll have to check exactly how the bylaws can be amended during such an assembly.

Taking back my board member hat, I'll make sure your proposition is discussed at the next board meeting.


On 04/03/2015 15:59, Sylvain LE GAL wrote:
<blockquote cite="" type="cite">
Hi All,

The last months, community members talked a lot about licences, due to the change of licence of Odoo SA from AGPL to LGPL.

I so thought about the possibility to change the licence of OCA modules. In the time being :
- Contributors sign a CLA that allow OCA to change the licences;
- OCA allows OSI licences. (AGPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, ...) ;
- In fact, all modules are under AGPL licence; (see below) ;

I consider that the licence change is an important decision, I would like to propose to add in the OCA bylaws the following rule :
"The decision to change licences of OCA Modules must be only done in general assembly and validated by X% of the members", X must be something like 2/3. (or something similar, written in correct english) ;-)

What do you think about that proposition ?

Thanks for your attention.

Kind regards.

'licence' value
(in __openerp__ file)
Unported Modules Ported Modules
AGPL-3 189 172
AGPL v3 12
GPL-3 2 4
GPL-2 or any later version 4
GPL-3 or any later version 9 4
Undefined 24 36

Total 240 216

Ratio Ported Module / Total

Analyse of all OCA modules presents in Github, based on default branch (usually '8.0), realized 2 weeks ago.

Sylvain LE GAL
Service informatique
GRAP - Groupement Régional Alimentaire de Proximité

3 Grande rue des Feuillants, 69001 Lyon
Bureau :
Astreinte :
GRAP sur le Web : Site Web | Facebook | Twitter
GRAP - service Informatique sur le Web : Twitter

Post to:

Alexandre Fayolle
Chef de Projet
Tel : + 33 (0)4 79 26 57 94

Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac Cedex