On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Udo Spallek <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Luis, > > Sat, 19 Nov 2011 22:04:42 -0300 > Luis Falcon <[email protected]>: >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Cédric Krier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 19/11/11 19:34 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote: >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Cédric Krier >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 19/11/11 17:26 -0300, Luis Falcon wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Cédric Krier >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > On 28/09/11 19:31 +0200, Cédric Krier wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I was looking at Elveos [1] and I thought that it could be a >> >> >> >> good place to get some Tryton features collaboratively >> >> >> >> funded. What do you think? Should we promote it on the >> >> >> >> website? >> >> >> > Here is a proposal to promote elveos on the Tryton website: >> >> >> > http://moretus.b2ck.com:8000/ >> >> >> > What do you think? >> >> >> Having it on your B2CK is your decision. >> >> > This is not only for B2CK! Anyone is *free* to make an offer for >> >> > any feature request or to ask for any one. And the system is >> >> > controled by a third party, not B2CK. >> >> Sure. That's just what I said. It's your decision. It reminds me >> >> the OpenERP disastrous "funded projects". >> > And we just proved that it is working. > The shared founding model of other open ERP projects was IMHO not > functioning, because the vendor company develop stuff and after this > they put a fantasy price to fund it. A user can buy for a given fix > amount participation to this funding, and get the developed module > delivered on demand. > But who knows how much money the vendor already earned for a specific > shared funding? > Who knows if the software is already un-jailed and the vendor is just > selling this stuff some time longer to gain extra income? > In this projects a over mighty vendor controls the funding process by > his own, and the user is coerced to trust his vendor. IMHO this can not > work. > > Elveos is a different approach, IMHO we really should try. It is a > company which gives a independent third party interface to an both side > open ended donation process. On the offer side everyone can put his > offer, even for one and the same feature. On the donation side everyone > can put the money he or she wanted to pay. For me it is the best > solution for now, because its transparent for all. > >> Thymbra donated to support the cause, but not because of the >> "pay-it-or-beat-it" concept. > What exactly is the "pay-it-or-beat-it" concept you talk about? > >> Tomorrow someone will say in order to get the upgrade or migration >> script, you will have to pay.... > Yes, possible. But always possible even without elveos donations. But do > you really think someone will find followers on this way? And following > Trytons usual policies, a module update to a next version without > migration will simply not be published on Tryton. Thats it. > >> I've seen this before.... vendor >> lock-in. > I understand people with long experiences and investments in other open > ERP communities and their angst for bad leadership of a all mighty > vendor. I come from the same background: I participated and contributed > to SQL-Ledger (vendor: DWS-Systems) for two years, > Lx-Office(vendor:Linet) for four years, TinyERP(vendor:tiny.be) for two > years and Tryton since the beginning. > > But where exactly do you see a vendor lock-in in Tryton project? > >> GNU Solidario migrated GNU Health from OpenERP to Tryton because it >> was a democratic, community-based project. So, today, we'll be using >> the Tryton infrastructure as a starting point. It is my wish to keep >> it the way it is, but if things go in the wrong direction, GPL >> provides the tools to ensure the community a truly free framework, so >> no more migrations :-) > Yes, and Tryton project makes it as easy as possible to be forked > quick, in case of a bad direction of the leaders. This gives me peace > and freedom. > >> >> >> I don't agree with the concept, so I would not put it on the >> >> >> Tryton homepage. >> >> > I think we all know now that you don't want to be paid for >> >> > development, but it is not the case for every others. >> >> > But just think about that: without B2CK being paid by different >> >> > parties and customers for almost all the current Tryton's >> >> > modules, the Tryton project would be just a dream. >> >> > More over, I don't see the difference between this and the >> >> > service page [1] on which you asked to be referenced. >> >> Completely different story. Thymbra offers services around Tryton, >> >> as B2CK offers services about GNU Health, as both companies agreed >> >> and signed ( B2CK is at the GNU Health services site >> >> http://health.gnu.org/services.html ) >> >> Thymbra will never put an add asking for money to develop >> >> something. So, in the same way that I will never put an add like >> >> that in GNU Solidario site, I don't think that should be in the >> >> Tryton homepage. I would appreciate not to make public private >> >> documents between Thymbra and B2CK, less in a public mailing list. >> >> It is not professional. Send me an private email if you want to >> >> discuss about it. >> > I never talked about any private document. >> > I think you are completly mixing B2CK and Tryton. >> > Please read the second sentence of [1]. As your company is listed, >> > it is public that you asked to be there. But if you don't want >> > that's fine, we will remove it. >> I think that the only one who is mixing - badly - Tryton and B2CK is >> you. Thymbra deserves to be named on Tryton official website by its >> own merit, the same as the other providers are. > No, for me you are mixing B2CK and Tryton. You are singing the boring > song of Fabien who trys to tell everyone on every occasion: > Tryton and B2CK is Cedric Krier only. And we all know its a boring lie, > which shows only one thing: You and Fabien do not understand the basic > ideas of free and open source culture. > > To be more precise: Someone who tell this lies is not respecting the > community I participate in and contribute to. Someone who tell > this is not respecting my own work and the hard work of my friends, > colleague and other contributors out of cedric and B2CK. Telling this is > offending to me. I hate this. > >> > I don't blame anybody. I just say that for now expecting such >> > funding without explicit goals doesn't seem to work. >> > Again, you are mixing B2CK and Tryton, the sale of t-shirt had >> > nothing to do with the marketing of B2CK. It was only on tryton.org >> > and for Tryton project. >> >> I think that the Tryton foundation has to be independent from B2CK >> >> and the other service providers, and so it should the Tryton >> >> website. > I do not know somebody which is independent, what means: no > personal/busines interests. Mostly all around here will use Tryton > business related. Its a business related framework, so we have a > business-related community. > > So I just guess, with this restriction, the foundation will not have > many members. But I ask my mother. > >> > I find that promoting individuals or organisation that provides >> > services arround Tryton, will match the goals of the fundation >> > which will be promote, protect and develop. >> That's exactly what I say. But that is __not__ placing ads that say >> "pay for this functionality" in the official Tryton homepage. > Why not? There are millions of possible goals for a framework > like Tryton. Why not let the community decide to fund some good idea? > Why you need this restrictions? Why you must have people work for free > in any case? > >> >> We can (and should) place the names of companies that will provide >> >> service around Tryton. >> > This is in complet contradiction with what you just say above. >> > Please explain me what is the difference between promoting companies >> > that provide service around Tryton and promiting companies that >> > provide development service around Tryton? >> You misread it. Promotion of companies that contribute to Tryton in >> the official homepage is great. I would never make it an auction house >> though... is not good for the society. > ...society... yes, not to forget, always good to mention, when > arguments get less. Sorry, I hated killer-phrasing and buzz-wording. OK. You need arguments... Let me give you some arguments about society : - While you are in your cosy European house, I might be in Subsaharian Africa in a malaria infested region helping those who need it most. - While some are worried about how to screw the other company, I might be in a palliative care institution, not only helping them treating the terminally-ill patients, but installing free software so doctors and nurses can have a system. Of course, volunteer work, free of charge. - When an NGO asks me ask GNU Solidario to install GNU Health in their institution, we're always there for them. We work with very large NGOs and multi-lateral organizations. You know how much have we charged ? ZERO.
Don't want to bore you with more arguments... Just a couple of them so we all know where we come from. I hope that now is clearer for you how important is for GNU Solidario and for society the need of a free system. > > * What is 'not good for the society' when Tryton project let the > users decide over some new features which are not crucial to > Tryton? > * What is 'not good for the society' when possible supplier > and possible customer act on an open plattform and share efforts? > > This is simply not the same as an supermarket and an auction house. > > Regards > > Udo > > -- > [email protected] mailing list > -- [email protected] mailing list
