I think Raphaël made a good resume of the AGPL principle even if it's supposed 
to be known (and respected) by all OpenERP partners (which is not always the 
case).

Now, beside that, and the fact that hence we cannot and should not directly 
sell the modules but publish freely the source code, i'm in favor of any 
initiative that could bring revenues and finance R&D of different partners in 
an easier way. So, selling and charging services on top of the module, but not 
the module itself.
Until now there was a clear difference between buying a licence to have a right 
to use a software and paying to get a service on a software. Main philosophy of 
OpenErp was to only pay a service and not a licence, and according to me it 
should still be the case.

With the arrival of the V7, and all its marketing "buzz" around it, i'm afraid 
that it's causing confusion for customers (but also partners). The principle of 
an "OpenERP apps" is great... but when we hear in the press some declaration 
like "now you pay to have more functionnalities"... we've to admit it's quite 
confusing for everybody.

This long (but very interesting) discussion between partners show that there is 
a big demand from the community to clarify things but also to put some tools or 
procedure in place to better collaborate and enrich the OpenERP modules/app 
list. I think it's the editor responsability to do it.

If OpenERP S.A. is reading this :-) --> You've done a great job, you're 
developing a huge partner's network around the world, you're selling a lot of 
direct and short term (immediate) revenues (partner fee, training, consulting, 
support, etc...). Don't you think now it's time to consolidate the current base 
and enhance the indirect revenues brought by the partners (mid-long term 
revenues) ?
OpenERP is missing a lot of important features, since v5, there were no real 
improvement in functionnalities itself because you said that it's up to 
partners to develop this; and you're partially right. Next step should be to 
organize the partners modules/app in such a way the quality can be controlled, 
the partner can get revenue (from service, not from licence) from its work and 
OpenERP itself can be enhanced to become the best ERP in the world (it's still 
your goal isn't it ?). Now everybody is working in its own corner, every 
partner (or even OpenERP S.A. itself) is re-inventing the wheel, and with so 
many partners we're everyday facing partners which are not playing the rules. 
Some partners are afraid to publish their work because their direct competitors 
could "stole" it and "re-sell" it to the same customer base; this is not the 
AGPL philosophy but i fully understand their point of view.

I'm still 100% convinced that making business is fully compatible with 
Open-Source, but i sometimes feel (probably wrongly) that OpenERP strategy is 
not always in line with this.

________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Raphaël Valyi [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 14:51
To: Arun Venkat
Cc: Luc De Meyer; Bertrand Hanot; Nabil Majoul; Serpent Consulting Services; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: OpenERP: [Openerp-community] Partners Collaboration Model

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Arun Venkat 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I differ from Bertrand’s view. My opinion is to make the product more viable 
for partners and OpenERP I feel we should take the Google/Android marketplace 
route. Let there be a marketplace of tested modules which can be purchased with 
source code and a % of the fee be paid to OpenERP towards product development. 
This would ensure the life of the product and a more competitive and beneficial 
model for partners and clients. What say?

Regards,
Arun KV.

Of course, point taken: funding module development with an open source AGPL 
license is really hard as roughly the software engineering costs the same cost 
but can be sold only once instead of n times, to n customers. Now, this 
difficulty to get a guaranteed returns from selling AGPL modules explains in 
part the lack of financial investment and hence the relative immaturity of many 
OpenERP module, even from the core, but I'm coming back to this point in a 
second part of the email.

So as the code itself as indeed to be possible to get for free, then what 
eventually is sold instead is may be a service a bit more expensive to factor 
out these development costs you faced upfront during the development.

But really this works just like a company investing X in sales and marketing. 
Then that companies has to recover these X spent on marketing inside its 
service/product margin, right?

With the open source model, you tend to cut these X in marketing and instead 
you spent them on free R&D to build open source. Then, if your open source is 
great, you get just as famous for it as you would get from some marketing. And 
then you recover it the same way from your margin over your services.

Really, proprietary software companies tend to smoke instead much more than 
50%, sometimes even 80% into marketing and sales to trick the image about the 
true value of its product and a large part of it is also spent on protective 
measure to avoid people getting the sources or using without paying and also a 
large part is smoked in legal costs around the protection of their royalties 
over the code or over their patent.

The fact that only great open source tend to get promoted by opposition of the 
closed source market where money rules, is the very reason why open source 
product tend to result in a better quality: there is just less catch: solutions 
flows directly from the producer to the consumer; middle-man fat free.

You cannot wish to have both the advantage of open source without its catches. 
But really it tends to be a better world, well I'mean speaking about the true 
open source one ;-)

Completing what Alan Lords said about it, I would even say the end user of the 
module has even his own interest in publishing freely the source code of an 
AGPL module code to get it maintained in a more sustainable and cheaper by 
several parties instead of only one monopolistic one.
As a company, who wish to depend on only one supplier?

This is economical pressure to get the AGPL code published is even so pressing 
that the non publication of the module source code will automatically trigger 
high suspicions from all the community that the AGPL license is likely to not 
enforced:
"How what that company is not releasing its code publicly? How then do they get 
their audience then? They must be spending X on marketing, right? Wait a 
minute, if they spend X on marketing that they should also recover from their 
product margins, how the hell do they ensure that the sale of module that are 
free to redistribute cover both that marketing AND the R&D costs?"
I mean, it's elementary maths: the like-hood there is a catch instead is just 
to big to be treated with respect by the community.

By opposition, It would be instead so much simpler to at least state is boldly 
on the website that modules comes with its AGPL source code, that the absence 
of such mention raise a suspicion that is likely to result in a value 
destructive marketing from the rest of the community about the company behind 
the module.
Net benefit is negative and this is better this way.

And when you push the reasoning forward, at the end it's just makes more sense 
economically speaking to just publish the code and assume the open source model 
and assume that R&D cost in place of some marketing costs for instance. That's 
why the OpenERP world is kind of a bit binary: the open source guys and the 
others who don't play it by the rules.


An other thing that is binary really is the division between copyleft and non 
copyleft open source licenses. There are other license such as BSD/MIT or even 
LGPL where you can easily extend some open source product and sell it without 
having to enable your users to get and publish the code source freely.

There are even some open source ERP's with this apps model: for instance 
Openbravo.

So if you prefer the model where people can resale their extensions over a 
market place, you can very well opt for an ERP where you can do that instead, 
such as Openbravo.
There is also Tryton which  is GPL where you can build extensions in a SaaS but 
not publish them back. With OpenERP and its AGPL license this is not permitted: 
you can just not resell source code.


And this is just not about which model is the best or not. This is in fact 
mostly about that now that this is done this way this can not be changed back! 
thousands contributors contributed to the OpenERP eco-system over more than 8 
years now because of the guarantee from the license that their effort will 
remain inside the open source community and will not be taken over by some dark 
investor power.

Many of these contributors even contributed patches and source code to the 
OpenERP core codebase and hence technically have rights upon that source code 
(no contributor agreement never said somebody had the right to change the 
contract under which that code was contributed which was GPL till 2009 and AGPL 
then).

And this isn't about the code of just the core anyway. To get OpenERP working 
and competitive, you are likely to require dozens of community modules among 
the hundreds of available. For instance your localization modules. And these 
modules are likely to be solely AGPL with no participation from OpenERP SA to 
it and no right to them to even say anything about the license in the hypothese 
they suddenly didn't like their AGPL license anymore.

Speking about the core of OpenERP, the transition from GPL to AGP during 2010 
wasn't a big problem as basically with the AGPL the protections around the 
contributed code where in fact just extended to continue protect the open 
nature of the code even in the case of SaaS usage. These who didn't like that 
change could just start maintaining a GPL branch from that day and this is very 
much what the Tryton fork did for instance (remained GPL).

Now if you would like to change the license to enable not redistributing 
extensions, for instance transition from the AGPL back to the GPL or even some 
more liberal license such a MIT, then you would clash with the wish of the 
contributors who contributed to the code till date who may not agree with that 
move and would have not way to maintain a new branch that would prevent them 
from passing over their rights to see all the extensions of OpenERP published.

This is very well explained by the diagram on this page:
http://timreview.ca/article/416


But you, new comer, instead still have the choice to pick an other ERP if you 
don't like the licensing restriction OpenERP comes with.

Now, really each licensing scheme has its advantages and drawbacks. I'll not 
dissert upon that now, but just to illustrate that the permissive license 
enable paid extensions, or paid apps if you like (some may not ;-), let's see 
some product like Magento: it's a commercial success and one can resell Magento 
extensions. For instance: you could get an EBay connector for 60$ in Magento vs 
may be 2000$ in OpenERp wich would account for the development costs as nobody 
did it already. So the AGPL really makes it really difficult indeed to invest 
on the   software to extend its scope.

That being said, once these 2000$ will be covered in OpenERP, then you'll get 
the EBay connection for 0$ in OpenERP instead of 60$ in Magento. And this is 
like that already with hundreds of free OpenERP modules, including 
localizations for all around the world. Take OpenERP, the localization we built 
for Brazil is free AGPL, take Openbravo, the localization for Brazil is a 
closed source package from one single integrator (Disoft) putting a locking 
upon the product in the whole country (and believe me they don't sell it 60$ 
;-).

Also strong copyleft or "viral" licenses such as GPL and AGPL tend to build 
systems that will never stop to be improved over the time and that are here to 
stay. Look at Linux, believe me there where many guys trying to get it 
re-licensed under permissive license and that failed to happen due to the fact 
that just like with OpenERP not all contributors agreed on that move. But see 
where Linux is today? it's in most of the cell phones, DVD players servers...

I mean the GNU tooling we have over Linux, just like OpenERP tend to favor 
reuse and rationalization of the libraries instead of its fragmentation among 
peculiar business interests. Take OpenERP, you have some community module 
depending in chain upon 10 other community modules. Take Magento, it's very 
rare to see a extension reuse an other extension as business interests will 
hardly match and drag the collaboration.

See where which ecosystem will be in ten years? Do you believe the Magento 
codebase will still be alive? I don't think so, I think it the commercial 
entity behind Magento may survive, but really all that extension codebase is 
much more likely to go the trash instead (at least this is my opinion). By 
opposition, it's very likely that in 10 years OpenERP or some forks of it will 
still be around and rocking with a codebase that will successfully pass all the 
transitions with the maximum possible reuse.

So really it's not that simple and it cannot be changed back anyway, if even if 
many wished, even if OpenERP SA or its new potential investors wished. And this 
is very much what makes this place a safer place to work with.


I hope I provided some clarifications about how the AGPL ecosystem OpenERP is 
part of works. And all this taken into account I agree very much with what 
Bertrand Hanot said and as others agreed with.
Feedback is welcome.


Best regards,


--
Raphaël Valyi
Founder and consultant
http://twitter.com/rvalyi<http://twitter.com/#!/rvalyi>
+55 21 2516 
2954[]
www.akretion.com<http://www.akretion.com/>

[http://akretion.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/sign.png]


_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
Post to     : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
  • Re: [Ope... Stefan Rijnhart
    • Re:... Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe
  • Re: [Ope... Bertrand Hanot
    • Re:... Raphael Valyi
    • Re:... Joël Grand-Guillaume
    • Re:... Luc De Meyer
      • ... Lionel Sausin
      • ... Lionel Sausin
      • ... Christian Fast
      • ... Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe
      • ... Bertrand Hanot
        • ... Nicholas Riegel
          • ... Stefan Rijnhart
            • ... Rodrigue Villetard
        • ... Olivier Dony
          • ... Joël Grand-Guillaume
    • Re:... Christophe Hanon
      • ... Lionel Sausin, de la part de l'équipe informatique Numérigraphe
      • ... Christophe Hanon
        • ... Jerzy Orłowski
          • ... Humberto Arocha

Reply via email to