openerp-community team mailing list archive

[Raphael Valyi <rvalyi@xxxxxxxxx>]

IMHO this is not going to work because:

1) soon you would get parasites who would take a given module, rename it
(eventually with a little change) and put it on sale too, say cheaper and
with more marketing, taking over the initial author who invested the
development on it.

You think I m exaherating? Look put inested an equivalent of may be 200k
USD do build the Brazilian localization over 3 years and I as especially
protesting because OpenERP SA sold several partnership to proprietary ERP
integrator kind of faking they built it on their website... hey that's
money to them ya know..

The more we promote this as a market, the more we attract that kind of mean
folks and spoil the value of our eco system...

2) you would also instead have have honnest open source folks who would
really improve a given module (like this happen everyday, follow us on
Launchpad), and would feel really upset uf some bigger companies is locking
revenue stream around the initial module solely for them (say in case you
cannot sale a module already sold).

3) That Apps thing shouldn't illude anybody.
Sorry to be harsh but do you remember:
The 'quality' of the shared funding modules? The MySQL Branch? The
integrated BI? The RAD tools? The shinny customizable dashboards? The
inyegrated 'EDI' messages?

New version means new trendy announcements, but one should stay lucid.
Sorry but I predict Apps will just be the same fiasco as these other past
revolutionary big headlines.

4) And technically it's already doomed: I know no company deploying OpenERP
without a bunch of patch and still paying for it. Even 7.0 is a realse
patched continously like in the past.

Modules are continously patched/branched to be adapted to localizations and
specific usage and set of sometimes incompatible out of the box modules.

So packaged modules will bring almost nowhere in such situation. Okay may
be simple modules people would never pay for anyway, but not the other ones
like connectors, localizations etc... serious people with real customers
will still be working with branches of source code.

And yes standard working technical solutions would exist already to make
installation of these branches easy. It's just sad that IMHO we are running
after that Apps illusion instead of adopting these standards.
But oh I can understand, if you can do pip install a module, it's too easy,
one cannot lock the diatribution system and impose a dime on it...

But guys this is just as mean as distributing broken software on purpose
because you sell support for it. Oh now you sell SaaS so it cannot be
broken anymore? So locking the diatribution of modules would be the new
revenue stream? I mean come on...

These little catches will be ridiculous when installing modules will
technically be as simple as doing apt get on debian/ubuntu.
And if one isn t able to do a pip install, believe me he ia never going to
be able to implement and run OpenERP anyway...

IMHO module quality will improve instead because:

A) module editors are growing companies getting more audience/customers to
factor their development cost on, see how much we are now able to invest on
the new Magento connector for instance.

B) we should do peer review instead of isolated sale activities and this is
already happening more and more.

C) we should move to a test and continous integration culture. And despite
the OpenERP tools are very specifics unfortunately, we are just getting
there.

D) the more the OpenERP framework and base modules will consolidate their
quality (say instead of doing CSS/kanban view), the more third party
modules will stop being built on sand and the more quality they will have
out of the box.

C) and the more installing basic modules will become a commodities, the
more the partners will shift their service offer forward, selling broth at
larger scales and to larger customers, improving their business instead of
getting destroyed just because suddenly it s easy to get a basic
installation.

My 2 $BRL from my Android phone.
On Feb 8, 2013 2:24 AM, "Nicholas Riegel" <nriegel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>  Let me start off by stating that I am huge proponent of open source
> software design.  I firmly believe that when done correctly, the result is
> software that is superior than software developed under proprietary
> licenses. Linux vs. Micro$oft is a perfect example.
>
> What I think people don't understand is that open source does not
> absolutely mean free $$$ (as in free beer).  Now I know that the majority
> of open source software (including OpenERP) is give away for free, and that
> is okay, if that is what the software engineers who develop the open source
> software want.  It should be noted that all open source software that is
> given away for free still has a cost. In fact most of the key software
> engineers behind the successful open source products (i.e Linux kernel,
> Android OS, Mozilla / FIrefox, Ubuntu, Linux MInt, Fedora, etc.) get paid
> for their software engineering work.  Likewise OpenERP S.A. software
> engineers get paid by OpenERP S.A. for their development work.  OpenERP
> S.A. gives away OpenERP for free and obtains most of its revenue through
> partner membership fees, providing OpenERP as a SaaS, and support services
> to end users.
>
> OpenERP is essentially engineered to be a SaaS (Software as a Service) The
> source code is written in languages that are interpreted and not
> pre-compiled into binary executables. OpenERP S.A. has decided to not
> charge for the source code for OpenERP.  Even though you can get OpenERP
> for free, it still takes a fair amount of expertise (system admin and
> configuration knowledge ) to implement  OpenERP effectively. The average
> end user of OpenERP is probably not going to have the knowledge necessary
> to effectively implement and support an OpenERP system in an enterprise
> environment. This is part of the revenue stream for OpenERP partners and
> OpenERP S.A.
>
> That said, open source (including the GPL and AGPL) does not have to be
> distributed for free$$.  It is absolutely appropriate for the author(s) of
> the software, vendors, partners, etc. to charge money for open source
> software.  The real power in open source software (especially the variants
> of the GPL) is not the price, but the fact that when the software is
> distributed (free or sold), the SOURCE CODE is required to be included.
> Obviously subsequent additions or changes to the software (if
> redistributed, given away, or sold) must be included with the full SOURCE
> CODE.  There is nothing that states that binary version must be distributed
> or that the software must be very easy to install and configure, etc. Actual
> text of the GNU  Afero General Public License.<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html>
>
> I very much think that the best way to move forward is for OpenERP S.A. to
> implement an app store where module developers can sell (or give away for
> free) their AGPL developed modules through 1 click install within the
> OpenERP application.  Modules that implement very general features can be
> offered for free or for very low cost.  Modules that address very specific
> needs cloud be priced higher. If someone wants to implement better features
> or make other changes to the modules, they can either collaborate (maybe
> for a fee) with the original module developers.  If that is not desired or
> possible, then that person can fork the module and release a new one. It
> would absolutely be appropriate for OpenERP S.A. to receive a percentage
> (10-20%) of any revenue by hosting the app store at apps.openerp.com or
> something similar.  Modules that are sold this way would still have to be
> released under the AGPL license.Models similar to this are effective in
> many content management systems such as Wordpress, Joomla, and Concrete5,
> and to a lesser degree via comparison, the Google Play Store, Apple App
> Store, Amazon Store, etc.
>
> More importantly is that this system still meets the requirements of the
> AGPL and intent of GPL derived software. The 1 click install resides behind
> a payment system. Links to the source code can be provided once payments
> are made. Links can point to Lauchpad, Github, etc.  Links to download the
> source code do not have to be provided for free.  If an individual obtains
> the module source code (either by paying for it or by it being legally
> distributed to them for free from someone else), then they would be able to
> use it (but not via 1 click install).
>
> It would be great if OpenERP S.A. implements this idea.  OpenERP S.A. are
> you listening?
>
> On 02/07/2013 04:46 AM, Bertrand Hanot wrote:
>
> I think Raphaël made a good resume of the AGPL principle even if it's
> supposed to be known (and respected) by all OpenERP partners (which is not
> always the case).
>
> Now, beside that, and the fact that hence we cannot and should not
> directly sell the modules but publish freely the source code, i'm in favor
> of any initiative that could bring revenues and finance R&D of different
> partners in an easier way. So, selling and charging services on top of the
> module, but not the module itself.
> Until now there was a clear difference between buying a licence to have a
> right to use a software and paying to get a service on a software. Main
> philosophy of OpenErp was to only pay a service and not a licence, and
> according to me it should still be the case.
>
> With the arrival of the V7, and all its marketing "buzz" around it, i'm
> afraid that it's causing confusion for customers (but also partners). The
> principle of an "OpenERP apps" is great... but when we hear in the press
> some declaration like "now you pay to have more functionnalities"... we've
> to admit it's quite confusing for everybody.
>
> This long (but very interesting) discussion between partners show that
> there is a big demand from the community to clarify things but also to put
> some tools or procedure in place to better collaborate and enrich the
> OpenERP modules/app list. I think it's the editor responsability to do it.
>
> If OpenERP S.A. is reading this :-) --> You've done a great job, you're
> developing a huge partner's network around the world, you're selling a lot
> of direct and short term (immediate) revenues (partner fee, training,
> consulting, support, etc...). Don't you think now it's time to consolidate
> the current base and enhance the indirect revenues brought by the partners
> (mid-long term revenues) ?
> OpenERP is missing a lot of important features, since v5, there were no
> real improvement in functionnalities itself because you said that it's up
> to partners to develop this; and you're partially right. Next step should
> be to organize the partners modules/app in such a way the quality can be
> controlled, the partner can get revenue (from service, not from licence)
> from its work and OpenERP itself can be enhanced to become the best ERP in
> the world (it's still your goal isn't it ?). Now everybody is working in
> its own corner, every partner (or even OpenERP S.A. itself) is re-inventing
> the wheel, and with so many partners we're everyday facing partners which
> are not playing the rules. Some partners are afraid to publish their work
> because their direct competitors could "stole" it and "re-sell" it to the
> same customer base; this is not the AGPL philosophy but i fully understand
> their point of view.
>
> I'm still 100% convinced that making business is fully compatible with
> Open-Source, but i sometimes feel (probably wrongly) that OpenERP strategy
> is not always in line with this.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* raphael.valyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [raphael.valyi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Raphaël Valyi [rvalyi@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2013 14:51
> *To:* Arun Venkat
> *Cc:* Luc De Meyer; Bertrand Hanot; Nabil Majoul; Serpent Consulting
> Services; openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Partners@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> all@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: OpenERP: [Openerp-community] Partners Collaboration Model
>
>  On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Arun Venkat <arun.venkat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>>  I differ from Bertrand’s view. My opinion is to make the product more
>> viable for partners and OpenERP I feel we should take the Google/Android
>> marketplace route. Let there be a marketplace of tested modules which can
>> be purchased with source code and a % of the fee be paid to OpenERP towards
>> product development. This would ensure the life of the product and a more
>> competitive and beneficial model for partners and clients. What say?
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Arun KV.
>>
>
>  Of course, point taken: funding module development with an open source
> AGPL license is really hard as roughly the software engineering costs the
> same cost but can be sold only once instead of n times, to n customers.
> Now, this difficulty to get a guaranteed returns from selling AGPL modules
> explains in part the lack of financial investment and hence the relative
> immaturity of many OpenERP module, even from the core, but I'm coming back
> to this point in a second part of the email.
>
>  So as the code itself as indeed to be possible to get for free, then
> what eventually is sold instead is may be a service a bit more expensive to
> factor out these development costs you faced upfront during the development.
>
>  But really this works just like a company investing X in sales and
> marketing. Then that companies has to recover these X spent on marketing
> inside its service/product margin, right?
>
>  With the open source model, you tend to cut these X in marketing and
> instead you spent them on free R&D to build open source. Then, if your open
> source is great, you get just as famous for it as you would get from some
> marketing. And then you recover it the same way from your margin over your
> services.
>
>  Really, proprietary software companies tend to smoke instead much more
> than 50%, sometimes even 80% into marketing and sales to trick the image
> about the true value of its product and a large part of it is also spent on
> protective measure to avoid people getting the sources or using without
> paying and also a large part is smoked in legal costs around the protection
> of their royalties over the code or over their patent.
>
>  The fact that only great open source tend to get promoted by opposition
> of the closed source market where money rules, is the very reason why open
> source product tend to result in a better quality: there is just less
> catch: solutions flows directly from the producer to the consumer;
> middle-man fat free.
>
>  You cannot wish to have both the advantage of open source without its
> catches. But really it tends to be a better world, well I'mean speaking
> about the true open source one ;-)
>
>  Completing what Alan Lords said about it, I would even say the end user
> of the module has even his own interest in publishing freely the source
> code of an AGPL module code to get it maintained in a more sustainable and
> cheaper by several parties instead of only one monopolistic one.
> As a company, who wish to depend on only one supplier?
>
>  This is economical pressure to get the AGPL code published is even so
> pressing that the non publication of the module source code will
> automatically trigger high suspicions from all the community that the AGPL
> license is likely to not enforced:
> "How what that company is not releasing its code publicly? How then do
> they get their audience then? They must be spending X on marketing, right?
> Wait a minute, if they spend X on marketing that they should also recover
> from their product margins, how the hell do they ensure that the sale of
> module that are free to redistribute cover both that marketing *AND* the
> R&D costs?"
> I mean, it's elementary maths: the like-hood there is a catch instead is
> just to big to be treated with respect by the community.
>
>  By opposition, It would be instead so much simpler to at least state is
> boldly on the website that modules comes with its AGPL source code, that
> the absence of such mention raise a suspicion that is likely to result in a
> value destructive marketing from the rest of the community about the
> company behind the module.
> Net benefit is negative and this is better this way.
>
>  And when you push the reasoning forward, at the end it's just makes more
> sense economically speaking to just publish the code and assume the open
> source model and assume that R&D cost in place of some marketing costs for
> instance. That's why the OpenERP world is kind of a bit binary: the open
> source guys and the others who don't play it by the rules.
>
>
>  An other thing that is binary really is the division between copyleft
> and non copyleft open source licenses. There are other license such as
> BSD/MIT or even LGPL where you can easily extend some open source product
> and sell it without having to enable your users to get and publish the code
> source freely.
>
>  There are even some open source ERP's with this apps model: for instance
> Openbravo.
>
>  So if you prefer the model where people can resale their extensions over
> a market place, you can very well opt for an ERP where you can do that
> instead, such as Openbravo.
> There is also Tryton which  is GPL where you can build extensions in a
> SaaS but not publish them back. With OpenERP and its AGPL license this is
> not permitted: you can just not resell source code.
>
>
>  And this is just not about which model is the best or not. This is in
> fact mostly about that now that this is done this way this can not be
> changed back! thousands contributors contributed to the OpenERP eco-system
> over more than 8 years now because of the guarantee from the license that
> their effort will remain inside the open source community and will not be
> taken over by some dark investor power.
>
>  Many of these contributors even contributed patches and source code to
> the OpenERP core codebase and hence technically have rights upon that
> source code (no contributor agreement never said somebody had the right to
> change the contract under which that code was contributed which was GPL
> till 2009 and AGPL then).
>
>  And this isn't about the code of just the core anyway. To get OpenERP
> working and competitive, you are likely to require dozens of community
> modules among the hundreds of available. For instance your localization
> modules. And these modules are likely to be solely AGPL with no
> participation from OpenERP SA to it and no right to them to even say
> anything about the license in the hypothese they suddenly didn't like their
> AGPL license anymore.
>
>  Speking about the core of OpenERP, the transition from GPL to AGP during
> 2010 wasn't a big problem as basically with the AGPL the protections around
> the contributed code where in fact just extended to continue protect the
> open nature of the code even in the case of SaaS usage. These who didn't
> like that change could just start maintaining a GPL branch from that day
> and this is very much what the Tryton fork did for instance (remained GPL).
>
>  Now if you would like to change the license to enable not redistributing
> extensions, for instance transition from the AGPL back to the GPL or even
> some more liberal license such a MIT, then you would clash with the wish of
> the contributors who contributed to the code till date who may not agree
> with that move and would have not way to maintain a new branch that would
> prevent them from passing over their rights to see all the extensions of
> OpenERP published.
>
>  This is very well explained by the diagram on this page:
> http://timreview.ca/article/416
>
>
>  But you, new comer, instead still have the choice to pick an other ERP
> if you don't like the licensing restriction OpenERP comes with.
>
>  Now, really each licensing scheme has its advantages and drawbacks. I'll
> not dissert upon that now, but just to illustrate that the permissive
> license enable paid extensions, or paid apps if you like (some may not ;-),
> let's see some product like Magento: it's a commercial success and one can
> resell Magento extensions. For instance: you could get an EBay connector
> for 60$ in Magento vs may be 2000$ in OpenERp wich would account for the
> development costs as nobody did it already. So the AGPL really makes it
> really difficult indeed to invest on the   software to extend its scope.
>
>  That being said, once these 2000$ will be covered in OpenERP, then
> you'll get the EBay connection for 0$ in OpenERP instead of 60$ in Magento.
> And this is like that already with hundreds of free OpenERP modules,
> including localizations for all around the world. Take OpenERP, the
> localization we built for Brazil is free AGPL, take Openbravo, the
> localization for Brazil is a closed source package from one single
> integrator (Disoft) putting a locking upon the product in the whole country
> (and believe me they don't sell it 60$ ;-).
>
>  Also strong copyleft or "viral" licenses such as GPL and AGPL tend to
> build systems that will never stop to be improved over the time and that
> are here to stay. Look at Linux, believe me there where many guys trying to
> get it re-licensed under permissive license and that failed to happen due
> to the fact that just like with OpenERP not all contributors agreed on that
> move. But see where Linux is today? it's in most of the cell phones, DVD
> players servers...
>
>  I mean the GNU tooling we have over Linux, just like OpenERP tend to
> favor reuse and rationalization of the libraries instead of its
> fragmentation among peculiar business interests. Take OpenERP, you have
> some community module depending in chain upon 10 other community modules.
> Take Magento, it's very rare to see a extension reuse an other extension as
> business interests will hardly match and drag the collaboration.
>
>  See where which ecosystem will be in ten years? Do you believe the
> Magento codebase will still be alive? I don't think so, I think it the
> commercial entity behind Magento may survive, but really all that extension
> codebase is much more likely to go the trash instead (at least this is my
> opinion). By opposition, it's very likely that in 10 years OpenERP or some
> forks of it will still be around and rocking with a codebase that will
> successfully pass all the transitions with the maximum possible reuse.
>
>  So really it's not that simple and it cannot be changed back anyway, if
> even if many wished, even if OpenERP SA or its new potential
> investors wished. And this is very much what makes this place a safer place
> to work with.
>
>
>  I hope I provided some clarifications about how the AGPL ecosystem
> OpenERP is part of works. And all this taken into account I agree very much
> with what Bertrand Hanot said and as others agreed with.
> Feedback is welcome.
>
>
>  Best regards,
>
>
> --
>  Raphaël Valyi
> Founder and consultant
> http://twitter.com/rvalyi <http://twitter.com/#%21/rvalyi>
>  +55 21 2516 2954 <#13cb80c90e4b859b_>
> www.akretion.com
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> Post to     : openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> Post to     : openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>