openerp-community team mailing list archive

[Juan Cristobal Lopez Arrieta <juancristobal@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree 100% with Eric's opinion.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Eric Caudal <eric.caudal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  My 2 cts:
> - OpenERP has no business model on selling the code. If you want to sell
> code, choose another ERP. Opensource allows the copy: don't bother in
> complaining about people doing it!
> - A localization is partly a setup/partly code (some wizard)/partly the
> capacity for the integrator to explain it to the customer. You could
> protect the 1st part or the last part (your procedures) but for the rest...
> - Companies hire my services so that I can help them either setup current
> OpenERP code or patch it/create new functionalities. Even if
> functionalities are similar between companies, they continue hiring us
> because we help them find innovative solutions (and every company has its
> own needs/tricks/specificities that justify it.
> - paid apps will never work if it is based on code
> - paid apps could work if it is linked to a service or added feature which
> is not AGPL code (for example an EDI network or a membership or a SaaS
> service or an Android app etc).
> - Still a voluntary fee (donation with a percentage to the hoster) could
> be a solution for some people/situations ("you liked it, please help me").
> I would personally not rely on it as a company.
>
>  Eric Caudal*CEO*
> --*Elico Corporation, Shanghai branchOpenERP Premium Certified Training Partner *
> Cell: + 86 186 2136 1670
> Office: + 86 21 6211 8017/27/37
> Skype: elico.corperic.caudal@elico-corp.comhttp://www.elico-corp.com
>
> [image: Elico Corp]
> On 02/08/2013 06:28 PM, Raphael Valyi wrote:
>
> 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 <21%202516%202954><#13cb9cba5d03601c_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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 
Juan Cristobal Lopez Arrieta
http://www.openerp.com/node/560    +54376 4437686
Celular: +549376 4376481
skype  : jclopezar