headers
Federico Bruni | 11 Sep 2010 09:57
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 22 Sep 2010 17:12

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Anastasios Hatzis | 22 Sep 2010 18:21
Picon

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 22 Sep 2010 18:51
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis <anh@...> 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.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hugo Roy | 22 Sep 2010 23:51
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
> On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis <anh <at> 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
--

-- 
  Hugo Roy                           im: hugo <at> jabber.fsfe.org 
  French Coordinator            http://www.fsfe.org/about/roy 

The Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general
understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law,
business and society. Become a Fellow http://www.fsfe.org/join

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion <at> fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 23 Sep 2010 01:16
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy <hugo <at> 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 <at> 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.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion <at> fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 27 Sep 2010 16:58

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 01:16:39 schrieb David Gerard:
> On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy <hugo@...> wrote:
> > Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
> >> On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis <anh@...> 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".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Wouter Tebbens | 27 Sep 2010 17:41
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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 Roy<hugo@...>  wrote:
>>> Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
>>>> On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis<anh@...>  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"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alexandre Dulaunoy | 28 Sep 2010 15:25
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Wouter Tebbens <wouter@...> 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

--

-- 
--                   Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
--                             http://www.foo.be/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Diary
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Georg C. F. Greve | 28 Sep 2010 11:34
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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-new-
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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 28 Sep 2010 13:06
Picon
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

On 28 September 2010 10:34, Georg C. F. Greve <greve@...> 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.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Georg C. F. Greve | 28 Sep 2010 14:48
Gravatar

Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

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

--

-- 
Georg C. F. Greve <greve@...>
Member of the General Assembly
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane