OK I found a former thread where you conclude (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!searchin/tryton/gpl/tryton/85G3MbUUp_M/vw85C3RkVpAJ):"If it is a derivative work then yes we want it to be under GPL. If it is not a derivative work then do what you want." This seem contradictory with what states openERP on the question (http://www.openerp.com/services/faq-onsite): "The rule is that all OpenERP Modules need to be licensed under the same License used by the rest of the system they are based on. If you make your own modules, they must therefore be published under the AGPL License. However, if you are using OpenERP Enterprise and need to make a module for strictly private use, a special Licensing exception is available (OpenERP AGPL + Private Use), which allows you to make a private module and not be required to give the source code to all users (see the next questions)" I don't think AGPL versus GPL is the reason for that difference ?
I think it all depends on your definition of derivative work. According to OpenERP SA, merely importing their code makes a module a derivative from their work. According to others it is not the case. So in the end, I think this kind of question can only be answered effectively by a court. Because it all depends on the understanding of "derivative work" that a judge will have (and this understanding is based on his knowledge of the law, the country jurisprudence and so on) and since we're not lawyers and certainly not judges our opinion on the subject is incomplete to say the least.
I ask this question in order to protect the client, not the developer. The client wishes to keep his own developments (new modules) private (not have to be requested the source code by another company nor any user whether internal or external to the company).
According to me, you are the author of the module. So you distribute it to your customer and thus you comply with the GPL. If your customer wants to distribute it they must also follow the GPL (and thus give the source, etc). I don't see how some other company might have anything to say in this transaction (unlike the AGPL where a company that is using the module through the network might request the source code). The status of people working inside the company is AFAIK settled by their work contract. I think that employees and subcontractors usually do not enjoy the liberties given by the GPL unless they are explicitly given.
Why not use LGPL licence instead of GPL regarding Tryton framework ?
Tryton being a fork of OpenERP relicensing would have been very difficult ;). -- Nicolas Évrard B2CK SPRL rue de Rotterdam, 4 4000 Liège Belgium Tel: +32 472 54 46 59 E-mail/Jabber: [email protected] Website: http://www.b2ck.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
