@turkinigor > I understand the spirit of GPL and I contribute bugs description and bug > fixes to the project.
GPL is not only about your mentioned things, but also the code too... > But my customer don't wanna share his customizations and integration source > code, and it is proper decision. If your customer and you agree to that, this is your choice. But none from you both can insist on keeping the software closed. This should be mutual agreement. This does not change any of the license terms. @janneman > Resume: you may create your code (in gpl) and you may charge a fee to your > customer. If both agree not to publish this work, it's ok. But if it is > published sometime later, it should be GPL. You can charge for the development only once not for the license on existing software. And you can not ask customer to keep the code unshared. @rvalyi > What is not allowed by GPL, is, just like some very few bastards companies > seems to do unfortunately, is that you develop a module linking to OpenERP > (having a dependency upon objects defined in GPL code of OpenERP) and then > resale it to several folks/customers, without publishing the source publicly > under the GPL. I am glad that you at last have noticed that. These are the companies I have been talking about, for a 1.5 years here, and have received numerous offenses from Tiny and their blind followers and patriots. > Now, there are also workarounds and you can play with limits. You can for > instance control OpenERP remotely using webservices with frameworks such as > OOOR http://code.google.com/p/ooor/ (or some M$ designer plugins) and not > redistribute the code because it doesn't "link" to OpenERP objects in memory > but simply interoperates with it with text messages (webservices). Still, > working with open source without being really part of it, is just a plain > stupid short term vision IMHO. This is common misunderstood conception, that have been discussed long time ago and exist in numerous FAQ's about open source software (free software) in general and GPL in particular. If derived software is functional for use only with the GPL licensed application, for example an OpenObject web client (I can not imagine that this piece of software can be used with Axapta or Compiere) this must be licensed under GPL. This is the same for OO Excel clients OpenOffice report designers etc. If one would take this software and distribute it freely, the original developer (who made it propietary) could scream as loud as he can, but could do nothing about it, because this is discussed long before and known to any and every developer/expert that had interest to read and think of the GPL license. That is why a LGPL, BSD and other license types exist and be applied to the libraries and other software that would be included into proprietary derived work. BTW: most changes in next versions of GPL are just made to make things clearer, and end the speculations about them. These concepts, we are talking about, are present even on initial GPL. :) ----- Although there are situations when GPL is strangling/limiting the use of software. Numerous countries have legislative restrictions on several types of software, that could not be distributed under GPL like licenses. To my opinion there should be made exceptions in order not to prohibit the use in these fields. This is just a matter of common sense. These are specialized fiscal and other high risk applications. These exceptions would render the software stronger in vertical markets and greatly improve maturity of it even in GPL'ed portions. @rvalyi > I already urged Tiny to present such a contribution agreement, like one year > ago. The more they wait, the more they could be people attacking them upon > copyright ownership (and hence future licensing policy). That could already > be too late for them to be able to decide future licensing changes... This could not be applied to the past contributions. The train has gone, and they have missed it. There are hundreds and thousands of contributions of code made before, that were done over GPL'ed work and there is nothing to be done about it. It has been woven into code, and are inseparable from Tiny's work. Consequently even if they would be applied to the future contributions, this would not bring any good. The code should be completely overwritten to exclude all the contributions. There have been numerous cases when people have done that to make proprietary versions of free soft. Any volunteer? :) BTW: Copyright, as other terms, that have been forming historically over time, is not strictly defined. It can mean/state as less as "this is original developer". This does not obligatory mean "the owner of exclusive distribution rights". These rights are usually defined in EULA. Kaspars ----------------------- http://kndati.lv -------------------- m2f -------------------- -- http://www.openobject.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=44880#44880 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ Tinyerp-users mailing list http://tiny.be/mailman2/listinfo/tinyerp-users
