@fabien I would like to make clear some understandings, please do not mess open-source with GPL.
I know lot of things that are open-sourced, but not licensed under GPL like license - it just state that there are uncompiled source code available accompanied. GPL presumes both - the open-source and freedom of use and modification. @gegard My mistake, I did not realize that you would like to inquire about module. It was a bit misleading that you did not want to know of "features", but rather wanted to know of legal things first :), right? We are working on 3 major ways: 1) localization and translation of existing modules; 2) tuning up things that we think are not right in basic setup; 3) building specialized modules; About the major modules we have already developed: 1) IT Resource management (we have implemented in our company, but have no documentation); 2) Invoicing (despite some delays, we are considering this module stable and starting to use it right these days, but again have no documentation) As the modules are pretty specific, vertical and are intended for skilled personnel, I see no possibility to start using them without detailed documentation or our implementation services right now. Invoicing were not so stable to let external people using it, as we did some extra work on it for last half a month. So if you would like to give those modules a try we will have setup of an online demo server next week. Contact me private to kasparsv[at]kndati.lv and I will give you access to it. ---------------- What about migration script - we had some confused customers who went suspicious when we tell - the product license is free, oh well almoast free... Then they start bothering if it will not end up at the greater TCO than proprietary soft. It is funny that some (I suppose) several hundred SLOCS are so expensive for Tiny, so it is better to scare customers away from great free many-thousands-SLOC software, is'nt it so? In principle you just have to buy partnership, or maintenance contract anyway. I have read partnership contract where it clearly states that partner agrees not to disclose purchased modules (shared funding) to even his customers, without buying additional "copies" from Tiny. So it is clear that you have to buy a license for every customer, right. Then where is the GPL spirit? The partnership fee just rose significantly during last year, though I do not believe that we will receive leads from Latvia or consume credits in any other way, let it be services or anything else. I assume that in free software environment there have to be freedom on buying services you actually need. And work on a win-win basis, as you state. But in this case we work on the same field, presumably should cooperate (in essence - be partners) to promote GPL - free software. But in reality have situation where Axelor hides away connector modules for outlook/thunderbird, so in essence make it inaccessible and therefore proprietary. You are doing the same on shared funding projects and migration scripts, and hiding away community work. I doubt that ordinary user would be able to make use of bazaar to download the module he desires. So why I should make it available on launchpad, where only your marketing people will benefit and create banners saying - we have this and that industry specific vertical modules. You will not come to me and buy partnership if you would like to use our modules, right? You will not come and say, here is my client who wants your services on the implementation. So that is why we are not decided yet, whether to post it to the Launchpad, or place them in our web page - freely available. As I do not see Axelor connectors there, and many other modules from so called partners. I do not think that we are worse than they are - our code costs something too, and I assume more than several thousands (Partnership) of euros, for the reight not to distribute under GPL. Which, by the way, is not so small sum of money in other - non western European countries or USA, or small markets. In essence - if we have no visibility, no right to use directly OpenERP brand and state that we are partners, although we are ready to contribute back code and promotion in our area - just like you did for the project, then why I should bother. I place our modules in my place, provide visibility, and people will at least know who did what, who can provide services on the particular field. The other way - there always will be projects that could not be done by one company solely and directly, whether it be Tiny or small like our one. Then there will be normal cooperation, in a win - win manner. Then partner will benefit proportionally to his involvement. And of coarse Tiny would benefit just because they were the founders, because there were always be customers willing to go for the services to the central partner (think of the big corps.). I do not know, there probably should be any partnership fee for companies that do not contribute code back to the community, but just selling services on other people's work, if they want to use brand or visibility on the site etc. P.S. This my vision of doing things better, but I do not insist on that it is the best. -sraps -------------------- m2f -------------------- -- http://www.openobject.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=35045#35045 -------------------- m2f -------------------- _______________________________________________ Tinyerp-users mailing list http://tiny.be/mailman/listinfo/tinyerp-users
