Members mailing list archives
Re: Licence Change of OCA Modulesby
Camptocamp SA, Joël Grand Guillaume
Now, you already have the warranty that only an OSI license can be used by the OCA. Then, I mean looking at the actual bylaws and the OCA objectives, even if the board has the power to change the license of some modules( the one written after the CLA), it won't be done lightly. I mean, it is never in the board interest to go against the will of their members !
So in case something is written in the bylaws, it'll be upon the vote of the delegate, not the members. I don't think we should force this only during the general delegate assembly that only happen once a year. Sometimes in this Odoo world, we need to act or react quickly.
Personally, I understand the will of our contributors to have some warranty about the license the OCA may change some day. Or at least to know that it won't be an unilateral decision here. As stated by Lionel, no General assembly in the OCA. The delegates have the right for such a vote (as they also elect the board).
Hi,First thanks to raise the subject and take time to report the current status of some modules. We'll discuss that on next board meeting.
Anyway, if most of us think it should be enforce in the bylaws then why not. More info the first week of April (date of our next board meeting).
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Lionel Sausin <email@example.com> wrote:
Le 04/03/2015 16:00, Sylvain LE GAL a écrit :<blockquote cite="mid:CAKwtNa109TUS5TzPNPhYO4h78jD=P8iVMV6VyeuGkae-9ahpGQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">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 bylaws states "[One of] The functions of the Board [is] to administer the assets of the Association", so I guess currently the board can change the license as it sees fit."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) ;-)
It would be fair to force the board to at least inform, possibly consult members before such a change.
But we do want the board to be able to take decisions.
I also doubt a formal vote is really needed, because we do agree on the principle of relicensing, don't we? It's in the CLA already.
Setting a license in the bylaws seems unpractical. It would force a vote before relicensing, yes, but:
- only a vote by delegate members, not all members (there is no general assembly in OCA)
- it would force us to relicense some contributions before we accept them, for no reason.
So maybe we should just impose :
- a direct communication to every member long before relicensing (ie. 3 month)
- during this delay before the relicensing is effective, discussions can happen and the board can change it's mind
- MAYBE, let a quorum (ie. >50% of members) veto the decision if they express their disagreement in the delay - I'm not sure how practical that is.