On 3/1/07, Jota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Every software designed on earth could and SHOULD be self-explanatory, and exempt of bugs, in a sense that the user should never need to buy "services" to implement, customize and use the software. Take for instance, the example of Microsoft Word or Excel. They are probably one of the best pieces of software ever. Not even OOo cames close.
the very idea of an erp system that doesn't need any implementation / customization process is just idiotic and ignorant. there aren't two companies in this world with the same needs, the same user profiles, the same personal preferences, the same business processes, and so on. for example sap is not open source software, and i don't think you doubt of its "overall quality" (whatever you mean by that), but there's still a *huge* market offering sap services: installation, configuration, process adaptations, custom developments, and so on. there's a huge market not because of sap's low "overall quality", but because sap is a huge erp system, and there's no possible way of implementing that without expert support. comparing a company-wide multi-purpose integrated enterprise application with a spreadsheet or a word processor is just... well, idiotic and ignorant too.
And, this kind of approach, is growing faster in the open-source world, and maybe latter will kill it. (I hope not)
oh yeah, it's really killing it, you're so right. free software companies profiting from their services is a plague: that's why the vast majority of "contributions" to free software projects come from paid developers working for red hat, novell, ibm, google, oracle, canonical, and so on. and that's why red hat keeps growing and growing in size and profit: because companies don't want to pay for the quality support they need; what they really want is a magical enterprise system that installs and implements itself at no cost.
So, if "intersol" wants to develop a module, if he wants to develop a bug free, code-perfect, user-friendly module, with documentation, etc., even if it's only 1%, he should have the right to deserve to get money for that effort, and to sell the module.
i agree that intersol should be allowed to sell his module as a proprietary package... if he used any other erp system as a base. no one is forcing him to choose this particular one, which happens to be licensed under the gpl. i can't just grab a book licensed under creative commons non-commercial, add my very own chapter, then try to sell the whole thing, crying "you can't stop me from selling my text-perfect reader-friendly propietary chapter under another license!". if you pick a particular system to develop your add-on, you *must* respect its license. i think the gpl is a fine license, and about 70% of free software projects think just like me. but if you think otherwise, go pick another software package as a base. -- Santiago Roza [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Tinyerp-users mailing list http://tiny.be/mailman/listinfo/tinyerp-users
