OpenERP Webclient proprietär

Il giorno mer, 08/09/2010 alle 09.50 +0200, Matthias Kirschner ha

Post by Matthias Kirschner
If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction please
contact us.
This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their
software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.

I don't agree with your interpretation :)

I think this sentence is straightforward: you need a commercial license
just if you want to remove links and logos. That is: you can use it
commercially without buying a commercial license... but you must keep
their branding stuff.

This is, for example, a typical strategy of many free (as in beer) photo
galleries for websites.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
. Why add branding restrictions on MPL?
These restrictions are only to maintain our trademark and branding.
It will not affect in any case product copying,
improvements, deploying, etc.
We believe that community will not be affected by these few restrictions
that's goal is only to recognise editors efforts. Source still opens and
free so enjoy.
This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links"
and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.

This restriction is a nuisance.. but I've never found a Free Software
ERP which is as good AND committed to freedom as OpenERP.

Also, the core software (server and GTK client) is licensed under GPL v.
3. The web client is nice and sexy but it's not essential.

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see
http://git.debian-maintainers.org/?p=open-object/openerp-web.git;a=blob;f=debian/control;hb=HEAD
Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to
more people. For example the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP says it is Free Software.

I've read right now the wikipedia page (which has not been edited in the
last days, except for the last version of the software) and I think
there is all the information needed, especially here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP#License

What do you think is missing?

Best regards,
Federico

Bernhard Reiter

2010-09-22 15:12:11 UTC

Post by Federico Bruni
Il giorno mer, 08/09/2010 alle 09.50 +0200, Matthias Kirschner ha

Post by Matthias Kirschner
If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction
please contact us.
This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their
software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.

I don't agree with your interpretation :)
I think this sentence is straightforward: you need a commercial license
just if you want to remove links and logos. That is: you can use it
commercially without buying a commercial license... but you must keep
their branding stuff.

What makes it unfree is not that attribution is required, but that the
format and place of attribution is fixed. So you cannot adapt the software
to all uses, which violates the second freedom.

Post by Federico Bruni
This is, for example, a typical strategy of many free (as in beer) photo
galleries for websites.

Yes, the admit that there is value in removing the logos and branding (not
saying anything about the attribution) and that you do not have the liberty
to do so. Another sign that it is clearly unfree.

Post by Federico Bruni

Post by Matthias Kirschner
This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links"
and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.

This restriction is a nuisance..

It is more than that. A message in the about dialog, the splash screen and all
related documentation (if there is any of this) is a nuisance, but it does
not obstruct the ability to adapt the software to your needs.
If you are using the software embedded in your washing machine or your mobile
phone, large logos and forced links on the front and main pages will obstruct
the usability and even make it completely unusable in extreme cases.

Post by Federico Bruni
Also, the core software (server and GTK client) is licensed under GPL v.
3.

True. This is why the message was specifically about the web client
not about the rest.

Post by Federico Bruni
The web client is nice and sexy but it's not essential.

It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business
people do it, like SugarCRM.

Post by Federico Bruni

Post by Matthias Kirschner
Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see
http://git.debian-maintainers.org/?p=open-object/openerp-web.git;a=blob;f
=debian/control;hb=HEAD
Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to
more people. For example the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP says it is Free Software.

I've read right now the wikipedia page (which has not been edited in the
last days, except for the last version of the software) and I think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP#License
What do you think is missing?

It is not clear about that the web client, as opposed to the other two
components is unfree. (Aka _not_ Open Source (Free Software)).

Bernhard
--
FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible: www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100922/70ce072b/attachment.pgp

Anastasios Hatzis

2010-09-22 16:21:35 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business
people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

David Gerard

2010-09-22 16:51:13 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business
people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.

- d.

Hugo Roy

2010-09-22 21:51:49 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business
people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.

In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?

Just a guess,
Hugo

--
Hugo Roy im: hugo at jabber.fsfe.org
French Coordinator http://www.fsfe.org/about/roy

The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general
understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law,
business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join

David Gerard

2010-09-22 23:16:39 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business
people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.

In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
Just a guess,

The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)

- d.

Bernhard Reiter

2010-09-27 14:58:50 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary
business people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

I have no good reference for neo-proprietary at hand.
I've meant that those companies are advertising a "free software" edition
and they have a lot of proprietary extensions. Often you only get support
for the proprietary stuff.

Post by David Gerard
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.

Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be
enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.

Post by Hugo Roy
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
Just a guess,

The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)

Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good
explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo"
in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary
business modell seems to be quite old. Often it went by "dual licensing".
"Open Core" is giving readers the wrong idea, as it sounds positive,
but I have only found uses where it was actually a proprietary business,
not a Free Software based one.

Best,
Bernhard
--
FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible: www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100927/e9a36adf/attachment.pgp

Wouter Tebbens

2010-09-27 15:41:20 UTC

Hi there!

Post by Bernhard Reiter

Post by Bernhard Reiter
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary
business people do it, like SugarCRM.

Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

Post by David Gerard
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.

Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be
enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.

Post by Hugo Roy
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
Just a guess,

The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)

Here's a quote from the FLOSSresearch project:
"Open Core (previously called ?split Free Software/proprietary? or
?proprietary value-add?): this model distinguishes between a basic Free
Software and a proprietary version, based on the Free Software one but
with the addition of proprietary plug-ins."

http://guide.flossmetrics.org/index.php/6._FLOSS-based_business_models

Note that Dual licensing is actually a different model, though also an
effort to make business around proprietary software.

Fortunately, the "open core" form of locking people into proprietary
hooks accounts only for 52 out of 451 of the free software projects that
they researched, and the dominant model is "fully free software".

best,

--
Wouter Tebbens
--
Free Knowledge Institute /Unlocking the knowledge society/
http://freeknowledge.eu/
Free Technology Academy /Online education about Free Software/
http://ftacademy.org/

Alexandre Dulaunoy

2010-09-28 13:25:34 UTC

Post by Wouter Tebbens
"Open Core (previously called ?split Free Software/proprietary? or
?proprietary value-add?): this model distinguishes between a basic Free
Software and a proprietary version, based on the Free Software one but
with the addition of proprietary plug-ins."

A small side note, "Open Core"[1] terminology is really misleading on two
aspects :

- A lot of companies are releasing some free software and they often claim
that is their "core infrastructure". It's often an exaggerated statement and
only contains some minor elements of an overall proprietary software.
It's often much more behind but they only use free software as a marketing tool.

- The terminology is leading to confusion with the "OpenCores"[2] project
which is really following the principle of 4 freedoms for their hardware
design.

IMHO, the "Open Core" terminology should be avoided.

adulau

[1] http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html
[2] http://opencores.org/ - http://opencores.org/projects

--
--? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
--? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? http://www.foo.be/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Diary
--? ? ? ?? "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
--? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov

Georg C. F. Greve

2010-09-28 09:34:32 UTC

Post by Bernhard Reiter
Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a
good explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo"
in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary
business modell seems to be quite old.

Indeed. In the 80s we called it "crippleware."

Unfortunately it would more aptly be called "abuseware" today because many of
them claim towards their customers that they are "Open Source" - with all the
implications this brings - which is a case of false advertising that abuses
the Free Software brand.

So I'd say that http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=347 is as topical as it was 15
months ago. Heck. meanwhile even Gartner caught on to this:
http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-new-
clothes/

Unfortunately too many in our community don't seem to care about customers
being misled. In one case I've even seen an "Open Source Award" going to such
a product and company, actively encouraging the cannibalization of Free
Software this represents. And customer protection has not yet caught on.

So there is a vacuum of enforcement around these terms, it seems, rendering
them increasingly useless, which is bad for all of us, as we lose a means of
transporting what differentiates us from proprietary software.

Best regards,
Georg
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve at fsfeurope.org>
Member of the General Assembly
http://fsfe.org/about/greve/
http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/
http://identi.ca/greve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 308 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100928/7af3b788/attachment.pgp

David Gerard

2010-09-28 11:06:14 UTC

Post by Georg C. F. Greve
Unfortunately it would more aptly be called "abuseware" today because many of
them claim towards their customers that they are "Open Source" - with all the
implications this brings - which is a case of false advertising that abuses
the Free Software brand.

It occurs to me that the OSI will not be pleased with this sort of
thing. Despite past personal frictions between some early OSI members
and, ah, everyone, OSI is basically on the side of Free Software, not
against it. The current OSI volunteer team are rather more capable of
talking to humans, are working to get the team useful again, and
having them guarding the term "open source" would be good for free
software. Has anyone from FSF or FSFE been in touch with any of them?
Simon Phipps (webmink) in particular would be very good value, and is
UK-based.

- d.

Georg C. F. Greve

2010-09-28 12:48:32 UTC