Hi there,
Bernhard pointed out on fsfe-de@fsfeurope.org that the license from http://www.openerp.com/download/stable/source/openerp-web-5.0.12.tar.gz looks like it is non-free. Here a quick and dirty translation of the message (the party from OpenERP were in English before):
The OpenERP web client is distributed under the "OpenERP Public License". It's based on Mozilla Public License (MPL) Version 1.1 with following restrictions:
- All names, links and logos of Open ERP must be kept as in original distribution without any changes in all software screens, especially in start-up page and the software header, even if the application source code has been changed or updated or code has been added.
You cannot use it for any purpose, e.g. make a version for very small screens (you are not allowed to remove the logos).
The company 2007-TODAY Tiny ERP Pvt Ltd is also experimenting:
If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction please contact us.
This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.
But in their FAQ they write:
. Why add branding restrictions on MPL?
These restrictions are only to maintain our trademark and branding. It will not affect in any case product copying, improvements, deploying, etc.
We believe that community will not be affected by these few restrictions that's goal is only to recognise editors efforts. Source still opens and free so enjoy.
This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links" and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.
Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see http://git.debian-maintainers.org/?p=open-object/openerp-web.git;a=blob;f=de...
Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to more people. For example the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP says it is Free Software.
Regards, Matthias
Il giorno mer, 08/09/2010 alle 09.50 +0200, Matthias Kirschner ha scritto:
The company 2007-TODAY Tiny ERP Pvt Ltd is also experimenting:
If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction please contact us.
This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.
I don't agree with your interpretation :)
I think this sentence is straightforward: you need a commercial license just if you want to remove links and logos. That is: you can use it commercially without buying a commercial license... but you must keep their branding stuff.
This is, for example, a typical strategy of many free (as in beer) photo galleries for websites.
But in their FAQ they write:
. Why add branding restrictions on MPL?
These restrictions are only to maintain our trademark and branding. It will not affect in any case product copying, improvements, deploying, etc. We believe that community will not be affected by these few restrictions that's goal is only to recognise editors efforts. Source still opens and free so enjoy.This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links" and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.
This restriction is a nuisance.. but I've never found a Free Software ERP which is as good AND committed to freedom as OpenERP.
Also, the core software (server and GTK client) is licensed under GPL v. 3. The web client is nice and sexy but it's not essential.
Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see http://git.debian-maintainers.org/?p=open-object/openerp-web.git;a=blob;f=de...
Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to more people. For example the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP says it is Free Software.
I've read right now the wikipedia page (which has not been edited in the last days, except for the last version of the software) and I think there is all the information needed, especially here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP#License
What do you think is missing?
Best regards, Federico
Am Samstag, 11. September 2010 09:57:51 schrieb Federico Bruni:
Il giorno mer, 08/09/2010 alle 09.50 +0200, Matthias Kirschner ha
scritto:
The company 2007-TODAY Tiny ERP Pvt Ltd is also experimenting:
If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction please contact us.
This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.
I don't agree with your interpretation :)
I think this sentence is straightforward: you need a commercial license just if you want to remove links and logos. That is: you can use it commercially without buying a commercial license... but you must keep their branding stuff.
What makes it unfree is not that attribution is required, but that the format and place of attribution is fixed. So you cannot adapt the software to all uses, which violates the second freedom.
This is, for example, a typical strategy of many free (as in beer) photo galleries for websites.
Yes, the admit that there is value in removing the logos and branding (not saying anything about the attribution) and that you do not have the liberty to do so. Another sign that it is clearly unfree.
This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links" and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.
This restriction is a nuisance..
It is more than that. A message in the about dialog, the splash screen and all related documentation (if there is any of this) is a nuisance, but it does not obstruct the ability to adapt the software to your needs. If you are using the software embedded in your washing machine or your mobile phone, large logos and forced links on the front and main pages will obstruct the usability and even make it completely unusable in extreme cases.
Also, the core software (server and GTK client) is licensed under GPL v. 3.
True. This is why the message was specifically about the web client not about the rest.
The web client is nice and sexy but it's not essential.
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see http://git.debian-maintainers.org/?p=open-object/openerp-web.git;a=blob;f =debian/control;hb=HEAD
Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to more people. For example the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP says it is Free Software.
I've read right now the wikipedia page (which has not been edited in the last days, except for the last version of the software) and I think there is all the information needed, especially here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenERP#License
What do you think is missing?
It is not clear about that the web client, as opposed to the other two components is unfree. (Aka _not_ Open Source (Free Software)).
Bernhard
On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis anh@hatzis.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.
- d.
Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis anh@hatzis.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
Just a guess, Hugo
On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis anh@hatzis.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"? Just a guess,
The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)
- d.
Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 01:16:39 schrieb David Gerard:
On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis anh@hatzis.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.
I have no good reference for neo-proprietary at hand. I've meant that those companies are advertising a "free software" edition and they have a lot of proprietary extensions. Often you only get support for the proprietary stuff.
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.
Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"? Just a guess,
The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)
Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo" in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary business modell seems to be quite old. Often it went by "dual licensing". "Open Core" is giving readers the wrong idea, as it sounds positive, but I have only found uses where it was actually a proprietary business, not a Free Software based one.
Best, Bernhard
Hi there! On 09/27/2010 04:58 PM, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 01:16:39 schrieb David Gerard:
On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Royhugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzisanh@hatzis.de wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business people do it, like SugarCRM.
Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.
I have no good reference for neo-proprietary at hand. I've meant that those companies are advertising a "free software" edition and they have a lot of proprietary extensions. Often you only get support for the proprietary stuff.
Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd think.
Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.
In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"? Just a guess,
The name changes, the concept remains the same ;-)
Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo" in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary business modell seems to be quite old. Often it went by "dual licensing". "Open Core" is giving readers the wrong idea, as it sounds positive, but I have only found uses where it was actually a proprietary business, not a Free Software based one.
Here's a quote from the FLOSSresearch project: "Open Core (previously called “split Free Software/proprietary” or “proprietary value-add”): this model distinguishes between a basic Free Software and a proprietary version, based on the Free Software one but with the addition of proprietary plug-ins."
http://guide.flossmetrics.org/index.php/6._FLOSS-based_business_models
Note that Dual licensing is actually a different model, though also an effort to make business around proprietary software.
Fortunately, the "open core" form of locking people into proprietary hooks accounts only for 52 out of 451 of the free software projects that they researched, and the dominant model is "fully free software".
best,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Wouter Tebbens wouter@freeknowledge.eu wrote:
Here's a quote from the FLOSSresearch project: "Open Core (previously called “split Free Software/proprietary” or “proprietary value-add”): this model distinguishes between a basic Free Software and a proprietary version, based on the Free Software one but with the addition of proprietary plug-ins."
A small side note, "Open Core"[1] terminology is really misleading on two aspects :
- A lot of companies are releasing some free software and they often claim that is their "core infrastructure". It's often an exaggerated statement and only contains some minor elements of an overall proprietary software. It's often much more behind but they only use free software as a marketing tool.
- The terminology is leading to confusion with the "OpenCores"[2] project which is really following the principle of 4 freedoms for their hardware design.
IMHO, the "Open Core" terminology should be avoided.
adulau
[1] http://alampitt.typepad.com/lampitt_or_leave_it/2008/08/open-core-licen.html [2] http://opencores.org/ - http://opencores.org/projects
On Monday 27 September 2010 16.58:50 Bernhard Reiter wrote:
Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo" in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary business modell seems to be quite old.
Indeed. In the 80s we called it "crippleware."
Unfortunately it would more aptly be called "abuseware" today because many of them claim towards their customers that they are "Open Source" - with all the implications this brings - which is a case of false advertising that abuses the Free Software brand.
So I'd say that http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=347 is as topical as it was 15 months ago. Heck. meanwhile even Gartner caught on to this: http://blogs.gartner.com/brian_prentice/2010/03/31/open-core-the-emperors-ne... clothes/
Unfortunately too many in our community don't seem to care about customers being misled. In one case I've even seen an "Open Source Award" going to such a product and company, actively encouraging the cannibalization of Free Software this represents. And customer protection has not yet caught on.
So there is a vacuum of enforcement around these terms, it seems, rendering them increasingly useless, which is bad for all of us, as we lose a means of transporting what differentiates us from proprietary software.
Best regards, Georg
On 28 September 2010 10:34, Georg C. F. Greve greve@fsfeurope.org wrote:
Unfortunately it would more aptly be called "abuseware" today because many of them claim towards their customers that they are "Open Source" - with all the implications this brings - which is a case of false advertising that abuses the Free Software brand.
It occurs to me that the OSI will not be pleased with this sort of thing. Despite past personal frictions between some early OSI members and, ah, everyone, OSI is basically on the side of Free Software, not against it. The current OSI volunteer team are rather more capable of talking to humans, are working to get the team useful again, and having them guarding the term "open source" would be good for free software. Has anyone from FSF or FSFE been in touch with any of them? Simon Phipps (webmink) in particular would be very good value, and is UK-based.
- d.
On Tuesday 28 September 2010 13.06:14 David Gerard wrote:
Has anyone from FSF or FSFE been in touch with any of them?
Yes.
When I was still representing FSFE, I met them regularly at various events, and raised issues such as this one. I'm sure Karsten does the same.
I've also known Simon Phipps for years and discussed these issues with him, and I know he read my article. My personal interpretation was that his "Open Source Scorecard" idea was an attempt to help rectify this development, although I'm not sure this was practical and proactive enough to actually have an impact.
Maybe the echo was not strong enough to encourage the OSI to move stronger into this direction. Maybe the board had different issues in mind.
But I think this is secondary.
This is not something that can be left up to any one organization.
It primarily needs people to no longer tolerate this practice and speak out when they see it practiced. Public protest can be a powerful thing.
Best regards, Georg