Cédric Krier schrieb: >> Let's imagine a SaaS-Provider implementing a complete adoption to German >> requirements. This provider has put quite some effort into his extension >> modules and offers services to small and medium companies. As programs >> like Lexware or Sage show, many of these companies are quite happy even >> with a fixed function set like in this case. >> >> Such a company will not contribute the code, since these extensions / >> adoptions are the asset. This is what makes up the business case. > > GPL or AGPL does never constrain to contribute the code. It gives just some > rights to the user.
That's what I'm talking about: Giving the user the right to get the source of Tryton-as-a-Service -- including all the additions the Taas-Provider has implemented. > In the AGPL, it is question to give an url to fetch the running code. > And what about custom code that you don't want to publish? > And what about a patch that is applied not yet released? > ... This is only a problem when providing Tryton-as-a-Service. From my point of view, there is no need to publish anything if Tryton is used within a company. But let my try to modify the original question a bit: Is this okay for b2ck: Some company offers paid Tryton-as-a-Service while not publishing their own extensions and not contributing to the Tryton project in any way. -- Schönen Gruß - Regards Hartmut Goebel Dipl.-Informatiker (univ.), CISSP, CSSLP Goebel Consult Spezialist für IT-Sicherheit in komplexen Umgebungen http://www.goebel-consult.de Monatliche Kolumne: http://www.cissp-gefluester.de/ Goebel Consult mit Mitglied bei http://www.7-it.de
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
