web-erp-developers — Discussion on development of webERP

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

Hi Danie,

Here is a summary specification that comes from the various documents and
knowledge I've collected over the years.  It's far from ideal as I just
created it since I can't give you any proprietary documents I have from
other companies!

Down the road we will be looking thoroughly into the tax functionality of
webERP.  If everything in this specification is not covered we will probably
be enhancing webERP to cover it.

Keep in mind that as long as the user can manually enter/modify various
taxes for different jurisdictions on the invoice then at least they can get
by even if somewhat painfully.

Feel free to discuss more about tax with me anytime.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danie Brink" <br...@na...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations


> Quoting skaill <sk...@ro...>:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Please go ahaid and send some specs to me so I can have a look. At the
very
> least I want to make it possible to incorporate multiple taxes on an
Invoice.
> Well, actualy I still need to do two more screens and convert the Stock
master
> table and a couple of others to reference the new structure.
>
> Kind Regards.
> Danie
>
> > Hi Danie,
> >
> > I may be able to help in some ways with the tax changes.  I spec'd and
> > rewrote the entire tax functionality for one of the leading world-wide
> > mid-range erp softwares.  It's one of my specialties ;)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Danie Brink" <br...@na...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations
> >
> >
> > > Hi Phil
> > >
> > > Danie Here,
> > >
> > > We have managed to get a small contract for web-erp and we have to
build
> > in
> > > proper manufacturing and job control as well as job costing. We are
three
> > > people whom have worked on this type of thing in the past, and we must
> > > implement it. What I am realy asking is not to energize yourself to
fast
> > we
> > > have to do this in the next few months, maybe you can once we are done
> > have a
> > > look at it. Also I have to change the Tax system to accomodate the
client
> > which
> > > I will also contribute back. It basicaly involve the seperation of Tax
> > > Authority and Tax Types( where Gl Accounts and rates are specified)
and
> > then
> > > the creation of a Stock Tax Category Table which replace the levels
and
> > will be
> > > foreign key linked to Stock master Tax Level ( Replacing Tax Level )
and
> > all
> > > other places Tax Level And Tax Authotity are refferenced. The Tax
Rates
> > which
> > > usualy is an loose assosiation will now be a fixed assosiation between
Tax
> > > authority, Dispatch Tax Auth, Tax Type and Tax Category. This also
allow
> > us to
> > > customize the reports to use the TaxType Report Field for the lookup
of
> > the
> > > actual display name on invoice and also the totaling of different
taxes of
> > > items on invoice and display thereof. Also we will be trying to fit
the
> > > postgres conversion into the time alotted as well.
> > >
> > > Also one we have finished with this client I am trying to put together
> > some
> > > stuff for an exibition booth. I have a Stock Exchange software and SMS
> > software
> > > (windows only, old, but good) which we will be giving away free to
garner
> > some
> > > interest, It will probably be an indisutrial technology exibition.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards
> > > Danie Brink
> > >
> > > Quoting Phil Daintree <p.d...@pa...>:
> > >
> > > > Nope we don't have warehousing management at all.
> > > >
> > > > Really in most situations it is possible to have the same item in
> > > > several different bins. So a single bin location for each item in
the
> > > > stocks master record doesnt really cut it.
> > > >
> > > > To do the job properly we are talking about another table for bins -
a
> > > > record for each available bin perhaps that gets updated with the
> > > > quantity of a part. This then gives us the option to suggest a
picking
> > > > run for the dispatch team - but a whole heap more input .... ideally
by
> > > > barcode at the time of picking - scanning serial numbers/batch
> > > > references as necessary too. This barcode data could then form the
basis
> > > > of an automated order confirmation/invoicing run. This would be an
> > > > interesting project BUT I must now focus on manufacturing once I get
> > > > re-energised for another development phase!
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:32, Chris Bice wrote:
> > > > > I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN"
> > > > > locations.  Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on
> > > > > adding the functionality for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes
on
> > > Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> > > one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source
Technology
> > > Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> > Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> > one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> > Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[Danie B. <br...@na...>]

Quoting skaill <sk...@ro...>:

Hi Steve,

Please go ahaid and send some specs to me so I can have a look. At the very
least I want to make it possible to incorporate multiple taxes on an Invoice.
Well, actualy I still need to do two more screens and convert the Stock master
table and a couple of others to reference the new structure.

Kind Regards.
Danie

> Hi Danie,
> 
> I may be able to help in some ways with the tax changes.  I spec'd and
> rewrote the entire tax functionality for one of the leading world-wide
> mid-range erp softwares.  It's one of my specialties ;)
> 
> Steve
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Danie Brink" <br...@na...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations
> 
> 
> > Hi Phil
> >
> > Danie Here,
> >
> > We have managed to get a small contract for web-erp and we have to build
> in
> > proper manufacturing and job control as well as job costing. We are three
> > people whom have worked on this type of thing in the past, and we must
> > implement it. What I am realy asking is not to energize yourself to fast
> we
> > have to do this in the next few months, maybe you can once we are done
> have a
> > look at it. Also I have to change the Tax system to accomodate the client
> which
> > I will also contribute back. It basicaly involve the seperation of Tax
> > Authority and Tax Types( where Gl Accounts and rates are specified) and
> then
> > the creation of a Stock Tax Category Table which replace the levels and
> will be
> > foreign key linked to Stock master Tax Level ( Replacing Tax Level ) and
> all
> > other places Tax Level And Tax Authotity are refferenced. The Tax Rates
> which
> > usualy is an loose assosiation will now be a fixed assosiation between Tax
> > authority, Dispatch Tax Auth, Tax Type and Tax Category. This also allow
> us to
> > customize the reports to use the TaxType Report Field for the lookup of
> the
> > actual display name on invoice and also the totaling of different taxes of
> > items on invoice and display thereof. Also we will be trying to fit the
> > postgres conversion into the time alotted as well.
> >
> > Also one we have finished with this client I am trying to put together
> some
> > stuff for an exibition booth. I have a Stock Exchange software and SMS
> software
> > (windows only, old, but good) which we will be giving away free to garner
> some
> > interest, It will probably be an indisutrial technology exibition.
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Danie Brink
> >
> > Quoting Phil Daintree <p.d...@pa...>:
> >
> > > Nope we don't have warehousing management at all.
> > >
> > > Really in most situations it is possible to have the same item in
> > > several different bins. So a single bin location for each item in the
> > > stocks master record doesnt really cut it.
> > >
> > > To do the job properly we are talking about another table for bins - a
> > > record for each available bin perhaps that gets updated with the
> > > quantity of a part. This then gives us the option to suggest a picking
> > > run for the dispatch team - but a whole heap more input .... ideally by
> > > barcode at the time of picking - scanning serial numbers/batch
> > > references as necessary too. This barcode data could then form the basis
> > > of an automated order confirmation/invoicing run. This would be an
> > > interesting project BUT I must now focus on manufacturing once I get
> > > re-energised for another development phase!
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:32, Chris Bice wrote:
> > > > I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN"
> > > > locations.  Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on
> > > > adding the functionality for that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> > Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> > one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> > Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 

Re: [Web-erp-developers] little wishlist

[Danie B. <br...@na...>]

Hi Dirk

Danie Here

Could you send me a more thorough description as I am in the process of
customizing the Taxes to work more modular so I might as well look at your
requirement and try to incorporate it.


Kind Regards
Danie Brink

Quoting Dirk Eversmann <dir...@gr...>:

> Dear Developers,
> 
> unfortunately I am not verry good developing this great program much 
> further (lack of knowledge in PHP).
> So I will post my oppinion to your latest discussions:
> 
> I would be happy about a more modular structure. I think, some users could 
> add eg. different languages. What about templets? I am not sure, if it is 
> still popular to splitt php-code and html? If someone tells me what to do, 
> I would be glad to spend some time doing the 'dirty work'.
> 
> Still my biggest problem with webERP: The Tax-thing. The german needs to 
> splitt sales and costs to different GL-accounts -depending on tax-rate and 
> situation- as well as to different tax GL-accounts. To make this more clear:
> The rates are: 0%, 7% and 16%
> The situations are: Purchasing and selling in Germany (0%, 7% and 16%), in 
> European Union to private (0%, 7% and 16%), in EU to business (0%), world
> (0%).
> Having different sales accounts (according to tax-level) also makes some 
> sence: One can easily check, if everything is ok: running total GLsales16% 
> = 100 > running total GLtax16%=16
> I have to report (and pay :-( ) my VAT every month and by now, I correct 
> the GL-bookings by hand....
> 
> Just a tiny wish: comma and decimal point is used here just the other way 
> around. Would be greate, one could change this in the config.php
> 
> Have a nice day, Dirk
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 

[Web-erp-developers] How Does Open Source Dovetail with the Commercial World

[Daintrees <p.d...@pa...>]

>
> By the way, we may have our first webERP customer.  We'll know within a
few
> weeks.  It's being readied to show them.  We'll be doing some industry
> specific modifications for their industry in order to impress them ;)
>
Brilliant! Good luck with this.

Thanks for the background Steve .... maybe I take this stuff too lightly
since it is a hobby for me - I don't need to make money from this - of
course it would be nice but I do get pleasure from talking to you folks and
the developing of the project. My wife thinks I'm stupid giving it away!
Probably am, but I take NO joy in marketing I am a product person/engineer
at heart - accountant by trade..... definitely NOT a marketeer. As you point
out commercial software is about marketing and first impressions. I'm not so
interested in this as you know and my actions in releasing web-erp as open
source does have the potential to make life difficult for commercial
accounting software businesses. I'm not a deliberate spoiler. Its just that
I spent a long time making something I am proud of (ego must be the driver)
and think it is useful. I would much rather it be used than rot on my hard
drive as just one massive waste of time.

Open Source does seem like a spanner in the works of commercial software
activity and probably tends to devalue the skills of professional
programmers like yourself. For this I am sorry. However, I don't object to
others making money off my efforts with a bit of marketing on their part - I
just think I deserve a right of refusal to include any improvements into it.


Phil

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

It isn't just a web shop but I can't explain more at this time ;)

In the future, as I get more familiar with Open Source I will think more
about what I may be able to donate.  For now I can:

1) Contribute to support
2) Find and report bugs
3) Fix bugs
4) Offer development contributions in the way of enhancements to interface
as well as functionality to the Open Source softwares as I gain knowledge of
them.
5) Encourage and help others who are interested in Open Source software I
have some knowledge about.

My views will probably not match several others, however I'll discuss them a
bit.  I spent 4 years and a great amount of money that got me behind in life
in order to get a degree in computer science which I believe gave me some
fantastic knowledge about creating software systems in the best ways.
Please don't assume by this that I am a know it all because I'm far from it.
Software is therefore my trade.  I have developed software for software
companies that package and sell it.  I develop software for companies
directly and they pay me for doing so.  I package some of the software I
develop and sometimes give it away, offer it for free use or sometimes sell
it.  I have spent and continue to spend a huge amount of time in moving my
skills ahead and writing software.  It is my living.  I don't make baskets
to sell, I make programs and I'm not an accountant.

To me, software is akin to music, scripts, paintings, books, etc.  This is
why it has a copyright just like the others.  We don't ask authors to give
away their books.  Maybe we should ask them to but say they can charge for
distributing the books.  I think it would be silly to ask them though.  The
big distribution companies would make the money and we would have
practically no written works. By the way no company would be stupid enough
to charge anything more than minimal for distribution of software because
later their customer would find out and be very annoyed with them doing so.

Having said that I also believe it is a free country/world.
Democracy/freedom and free-enterprise.  If people want to create something
and donate it them that is their choice for whatever reasons.  If I donate
some software to Open Source sometime it could possibly be for better
reasons than some that is donated.  I hear often donations are made because
of ego.  Well, that has nothing to do with being sincere with giving or
contributing to a cause.

Some believe Open Source and the commercial world can work together in
harmony.  I am of this belief and I would like to help prove it.  It has
become a cause for me that I can now pursue because I have the time, energy,
resources, etc.

Probably I went into the world according to Steve too far but how do I
properly respond without doing so.

As I become more familiar with the Open Source world it's quite possible I
will setup an Open Source project or two.  It won't be for months to a year
down the road though.

Another contribution I can make is offering a place to go to look at
further/alternate development of the projects I embrace and work on.  Here
is a link to one of our webERP development sites.  Not much done except
interface changes.  Nothing fancy (yet) either, just good old HCI interface
theory.  That is priority number one to us -  Ease of use, consistency,
orthogonality, etc.  You and I know functionality is most important but it
won't "sell" to "users" without ease of use and pizzazz.  See how much Open
Source and the commercial world have to learn about each other!!

http://weberp.gocom.ca

By the way, we may have our first webERP customer.  We'll know within a few
weeks.  It's being readied to show them.  We'll be doing some industry
specific modifications for their industry in order to impress them ;)

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Why wouldn't you make the web-store or whatever open-source and get in
> behind? This does not stop you from charging for distribution of it or
> for support and installation of it - and so keeping the family fed.
>
> Maybe I miss something. Software is a commodity now people love
> programming so there is quality software of most genres around under
> GPL. Goodness knows how many web shops. However, knowledge in the form
> of good local support, installation and bespoke modifications (that
> belong back with the project - but benefit a client) are the things you
> can charge for.
>
> Another 2c.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:32, skaill wrote:
> > Your point about GPL is important.  It seems to say the entire software
on
> > the computer (and network) must be GPL!
> >
> > What about making something "ready"?  For example, web store ready.
Call it
> > WSS for Web Store System.  In this scenario, webERP is made ready in the
> > Orders, G/L, etc. to communicate and accept. information from WSS.
This is
> > much the same as the CSV/XML and webservices solutions, isn't it?  A
> > separate program called WSS that acts alone or can be used in
conjunction
> > with WSS ready systems is created.  I wonder what the GPL says about
that...
> >
> > In this scenario, by the way,  the web store ready part within webERP
would
> > be a contribution and meshing any web store becomes much easier.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > Steve,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately does GPL make life harder then needed. Some people even
> > might
> > > start discussion that using acrobat reader and internet explorer
should
> > also
> > > be GPL when they are used for WEB_ERP.
> > >
> > > When GPL stays the license for WEB-ERP and you want to interfaces with
> > other
> > > software, then there are two methods:
> > > a. CSV/XML files import/export modules are needed to exchange data
(might
> > be
> > > combined with cron or other batch schedulers)
> > > b. develop webservices (nusoap) to extract/insert/update/delete data
into
> > > WEB-ERP.
> > > c. an API will probably already violate the license
> > >
> > > I am almost 100% sure that those two options create the work-around.
> > > I think that we should develop both interfaces when the license stays
GPL.
> > > An API would be the solution which takes the least effort to develop,
but
> > an
> > > interpretation of the GPL is that the software which uses the API
needs
> > also
> > > be GPL. For this reason, they invented the lesser GPL but I have also
some
> > > doubts with the lesser GPL.
> > >
> > > I prefer to change the license, but when we develop the above
workarounds,
> > > then it is also not a problem. It's a pity that we need thistime
consuming
> > > method to develop an independ (commercial) module for only and only
> > license
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > The advantage is when we develop webservices, then we have a very
flexible
> > > and high tech architecture which are promoted by lots of companies
like
> > > webmethods, magic, .....
> > >
> > > with best regards,
> > >
> > > Dick Stins
> > >
> > > p.s. I understand that the GPL is not enforcing you to distribute the
> > code.
> > > So you can decide not to distribute the code and serve your clients
with
> > the
> > > ASP model. You install and protect your server and your clients are
only
> > > using the software/(web)user interface. The client is paying for the
> > service
> > > instead for license.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works
to
> > > fall
> > > > under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things
are
> > > > tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation,
which
> > I'm
> > > > making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems
to
> > > > protect and encourage contribution much better.
> > > >
> > > > Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
> > > > enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works
that
> > are
> > > > mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.
In
> > > > this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the
> > > license
> > > > they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one
sticky
> > > > license area of concern.
> > > >
> > > > Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as
CPL.
> > > At
> > > > the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and
> > promoting
> > > > contributions and plan to do so.
> > > >
> > > > This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
> > > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> > identifiable
> > > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then
> > > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > > > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> > > sections
> > > > as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> > distribution
> > > of
> > > > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
for
> > > other
> > > > licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
part
> > > > regardless of who wrote it.
> > > >
> > > > If it said the following which drops the second half then there
would be
> > > no
> > > > concern...
> > > >
> > > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> > identifiable
> > > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then
> > > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.
> > > >
> > > > You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others
> > have
> > > > to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing
any
> > of
> > > > those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our
> > customers)
> > > > would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report
engine,
> > > > production system, shipping system, billing system much different
from
> > > > webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
> > > > Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate
the
> > GPL.
> > > > If I am off-base someone please tell me.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that
the
> > CPL
> > > > is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points
made
> > by
> > > > everyone so far.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to
submit
> > back
> > > > any
> > > > > modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by
the
> > > > > lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or
> > > version
> > > > ii
> > > > > makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> > > > > licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would
ever
> > > > > enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still
> > > thinking
> > > > > that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is
> > that
> > > > this
> > > > > says ....
> > > > >
> > > > > I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> > > > > I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> > > > > If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional
functionality
> > > on
> > > > > top of the existing system then I think that by using it this
should
> > > carry
> > > > > an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not
much to
> > > > ask,
> > > > > is it?
> > > > > If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that
they
> > > charge
> > > > > for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and
developing
> > > > > embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ...
always
> > will
> > > > be.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes
> > first
> > > > the
> > > > > contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with
the
> > > help
> > > > > contributions - only one test so far :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I
don't
> > > > profess
> > > > > > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my
viewpoint
> > as
> > > it
> > > > > > sits today.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing
> > > people
> > > > > will
> > > > > > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the
terms
> > > > then
> > > > > > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.
> > None
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.
Sure
> > > many
> > > > > say
> > > > > > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem
is,
> > > if
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.
Even
> > when
> > > > > they
> > > > > > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the
license.
> > > The
> > > > > > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it
never
> > > > gets
> > > > > > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many,
if
> > > any,
> > > > > > would take on doing anything major that they were going to
> > > redistribute.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of
a
> > > > > > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open
Source
> > with
> > > > > good
> > > > > > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them
the
> > > > > software
> > > > > > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and
vertical
> > > > > > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer
or
> > > that
> > > > > one.
> > > > > > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they
understood
> > > > that
> > > > > > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom
build
> > > those
> > > > > into
> > > > > > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed
to
> > > bug
> > > > > > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> > > > > marketable
> > > > > > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the
> > > product
> > > > > > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the
> > partners
> > > > did
> > > > > > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of
resources
> > > to
> > > > > > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it
was
> > > > > > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make
money on
> > > it
> > > > > and
> > > > > > more entities use the system because it can support more
> > capabilities.
> > > > If
> > > > > > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that
were
> > > > > > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If document management was wanted in the original system there
is
> > > > nothing
> > > > > > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone
does
> > > choose
> > > > > to
> > > > > > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less
functional
> > (or
> > > > > not!)
> > > > > > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their
experiences...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute
back
> > > any
> > > > > > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > > > > > circumstances
> > > > > > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I
would
> > not
> > > > > want
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to
include
> > them
> > > > if
> > > > > > > deemed appropriate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can
> > > download
> > > > > > it -
> > > > > > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make
it
> > as
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the
weekend
> > I
> > > > > will
> > > > > > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather -
my
> > > only
> > > > > > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this
so
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > open
> > > > > > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions
of
> > > code
> > > > > > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer
> > > more -
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of
> > several
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license
seems to
> > > be
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but
> > Apache
> > > > > > License
> > > > > > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable,
> > thorough
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and
best
> > way.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > 2000
> > > > > > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that
> > practically
> > > > no
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open
> > > Source
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses
including
> > > Apache
> > > > > > > exist.
> > > > > > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities
being
> > > > involved
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works
without
> > > > forcing
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice
and
> > > it
> > > > > > allows
> > > > > > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already
exists.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
> > > > http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit,
> > apache
> > > or
> > > > > > > > berkely.
> > > > > > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger
chance
> > to
> > > > > > violate
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of
web-erp
> > when
> > > I
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and
compiere.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am
not
> > > > into
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used
and to
> > > be
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > best it
> > > > > > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their
changes
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a
requirement of
> > > the
> > > > > > > lisence
> > > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely
unenforcable
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > side
> > > > > > > > issue!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a
> > newer
> > > > and
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for
all
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary
ingredients
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > GPL.
> > > > > > > > Have
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean
to
> > be
> > > > > > pushy,
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > > > > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who
has a
> > > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the
licencing
> > > of
> > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my
understanding
> > > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or
in a
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who
has a
> > > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the
licencing
> > > of
> > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my
understanding
> > > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or
in a
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would
> > prefer
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to
the
> > > > project
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who
just
> > rip
> > > > it
> > > > > > off
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as
open
> > > > source
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my
ability to
> > > > > police
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in
> > developing
> > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In
> > terms
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't
have
> > the
> > > > > > stomach
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why
Open
> > > > > Accounting
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this
project
> > and
> > > > it
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too.
I
> > > think
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my
preference
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to
Open-Accounting
> > > > rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their
project
> > I
> > > > > think
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more
elegant
> > way
> > > > > (from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that
it
> > > will
> > > > > not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with
classes
> > > and
> > > > > > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I
> > expect
> > > > > will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement
aim
> > > has
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
> > > > re-surface
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
> > Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1
today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1
today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > >
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

Hi Danie,

I may be able to help in some ways with the tax changes.  I spec'd and
rewrote the entire tax functionality for one of the leading world-wide
mid-range erp softwares.  It's one of my specialties ;)

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danie Brink" <br...@na...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations


> Hi Phil
>
> Danie Here,
>
> We have managed to get a small contract for web-erp and we have to build
in
> proper manufacturing and job control as well as job costing. We are three
> people whom have worked on this type of thing in the past, and we must
> implement it. What I am realy asking is not to energize yourself to fast
we
> have to do this in the next few months, maybe you can once we are done
have a
> look at it. Also I have to change the Tax system to accomodate the client
which
> I will also contribute back. It basicaly involve the seperation of Tax
> Authority and Tax Types( where Gl Accounts and rates are specified) and
then
> the creation of a Stock Tax Category Table which replace the levels and
will be
> foreign key linked to Stock master Tax Level ( Replacing Tax Level ) and
all
> other places Tax Level And Tax Authotity are refferenced. The Tax Rates
which
> usualy is an loose assosiation will now be a fixed assosiation between Tax
> authority, Dispatch Tax Auth, Tax Type and Tax Category. This also allow
us to
> customize the reports to use the TaxType Report Field for the lookup of
the
> actual display name on invoice and also the totaling of different taxes of
> items on invoice and display thereof. Also we will be trying to fit the
> postgres conversion into the time alotted as well.
>
> Also one we have finished with this client I am trying to put together
some
> stuff for an exibition booth. I have a Stock Exchange software and SMS
software
> (windows only, old, but good) which we will be giving away free to garner
some
> interest, It will probably be an indisutrial technology exibition.
>
> Kind Regards
> Danie Brink
>
> Quoting Phil Daintree <p.d...@pa...>:
>
> > Nope we don't have warehousing management at all.
> >
> > Really in most situations it is possible to have the same item in
> > several different bins. So a single bin location for each item in the
> > stocks master record doesnt really cut it.
> >
> > To do the job properly we are talking about another table for bins - a
> > record for each available bin perhaps that gets updated with the
> > quantity of a part. This then gives us the option to suggest a picking
> > run for the dispatch team - but a whole heap more input .... ideally by
> > barcode at the time of picking - scanning serial numbers/batch
> > references as necessary too. This barcode data could then form the basis
> > of an automated order confirmation/invoicing run. This would be an
> > interesting project BUT I must now focus on manufacturing once I get
> > re-energised for another development phase!
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:32, Chris Bice wrote:
> > > I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN"
> > > locations.  Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on
> > > adding the functionality for that.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] little wishlist

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

Hoi Dirk,

In the taxlevel you can enter the GL accountnumber per level.

For your turnover, you can enter per item an accountnumer. So you can setup
turnover 0%, turnover 7%, turnover ... GL accounts.

With best regards,

Dick Stins
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dirk Eversmann" <dir...@gr...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:04 PM
Subject: [Web-erp-developers] little wishlist


> Dear Developers,
>
> unfortunately I am not verry good developing this great program much
> further (lack of knowledge in PHP).
> So I will post my oppinion to your latest discussions:
>
> I would be happy about a more modular structure. I think, some users could
> add eg. different languages. What about templets? I am not sure, if it is
> still popular to splitt php-code and html? If someone tells me what to do,
> I would be glad to spend some time doing the 'dirty work'.
>
> Still my biggest problem with webERP: The Tax-thing. The german needs to
> splitt sales and costs to different GL-accounts -depending on tax-rate and
> situation- as well as to different tax GL-accounts. To make this more
clear:
> The rates are: 0%, 7% and 16%
> The situations are: Purchasing and selling in Germany (0%, 7% and 16%), in
> European Union to private (0%, 7% and 16%), in EU to business (0%), world
(0%).
> Having different sales accounts (according to tax-level) also makes some
> sence: One can easily check, if everything is ok: running total GLsales16%
> = 100 > running total GLtax16%=16
> I have to report (and pay :-( ) my VAT every month and by now, I correct
> the GL-bookings by hand....
>
> Just a tiny wish: comma and decimal point is used here just the other way
> around. Would be greate, one could change this in the config.php
>
> Have a nice day, Dirk
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

[Web-erp-developers] little wishlist

[Dirk E. <dir...@gr...>]

Dear Developers,

unfortunately I am not verry good developing this great program much 
further (lack of knowledge in PHP).
So I will post my oppinion to your latest discussions:

I would be happy about a more modular structure. I think, some users could 
add eg. different languages. What about templets? I am not sure, if it is 
still popular to splitt php-code and html? If someone tells me what to do, 
I would be glad to spend some time doing the 'dirty work'.

Still my biggest problem with webERP: The Tax-thing. The german needs to 
splitt sales and costs to different GL-accounts -depending on tax-rate and 
situation- as well as to different tax GL-accounts. To make this more clear:
The rates are: 0%, 7% and 16%
The situations are: Purchasing and selling in Germany (0%, 7% and 16%), in 
European Union to private (0%, 7% and 16%), in EU to business (0%), world (0%).
Having different sales accounts (according to tax-level) also makes some 
sence: One can easily check, if everything is ok: running total GLsales16% 
= 100 > running total GLtax16%=16
I have to report (and pay :-( ) my VAT every month and by now, I correct 
the GL-bookings by hand....

Just a tiny wish: comma and decimal point is used here just the other way 
around. Would be greate, one could change this in the config.php

Have a nice day, Dirk

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[Danie B. <br...@na...>]

Hi Phil

Danie Here,

We have managed to get a small contract for web-erp and we have to build in
proper manufacturing and job control as well as job costing. We are three
people whom have worked on this type of thing in the past, and we must
implement it. What I am realy asking is not to energize yourself to fast we
have to do this in the next few months, maybe you can once we are done have a
look at it. Also I have to change the Tax system to accomodate the client which
I will also contribute back. It basicaly involve the seperation of Tax
Authority and Tax Types( where Gl Accounts and rates are specified) and then
the creation of a Stock Tax Category Table which replace the levels and will be
foreign key linked to Stock master Tax Level ( Replacing Tax Level ) and all
other places Tax Level And Tax Authotity are refferenced. The Tax Rates which
usualy is an loose assosiation will now be a fixed assosiation between Tax
authority, Dispatch Tax Auth, Tax Type and Tax Category. This also allow us to
customize the reports to use the TaxType Report Field for the lookup of the
actual display name on invoice and also the totaling of different taxes of
items on invoice and display thereof. Also we will be trying to fit the
postgres conversion into the time alotted as well.

Also one we have finished with this client I am trying to put together some
stuff for an exibition booth. I have a Stock Exchange software and SMS software
(windows only, old, but good) which we will be giving away free to garner some
interest, It will probably be an indisutrial technology exibition.

Kind Regards
Danie Brink

Quoting Phil Daintree <p.d...@pa...>:

> Nope we don't have warehousing management at all. 
> 
> Really in most situations it is possible to have the same item in
> several different bins. So a single bin location for each item in the
> stocks master record doesnt really cut it. 
> 
> To do the job properly we are talking about another table for bins - a
> record for each available bin perhaps that gets updated with the
> quantity of a part. This then gives us the option to suggest a picking
> run for the dispatch team - but a whole heap more input .... ideally by
> barcode at the time of picking - scanning serial numbers/batch
> references as necessary too. This barcode data could then form the basis
> of an automated order confirmation/invoicing run. This would be an
> interesting project BUT I must now focus on manufacturing once I get
> re-energised for another development phase!
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:32, Chris Bice wrote:
> > I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN"
> > locations.  Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on
> > adding the functionality for that.
> >  
> > Thanks
> >  
> > Chris
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

Your solution sounds like an API (application programmers interface). The
GPL community has a strong feeling that this violates the license.

The separate program is dedicated developed for and related to WEB-ERP. So
that's GPL too.
Your program WSS call specific the the separate program, so that's GPL too.

That's a lot different then sending and receiving a XML message from an URL.
That could be WEB-ERP or some other program.

Or exporting importing CSV. The csv can come from or is send to openoffice,
WEB-ERP or ...

Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Your point about GPL is important.  It seems to say the entire software on
> the computer (and network) must be GPL!
>
> What about making something "ready"?  For example, web store ready.  Call
it
> WSS for Web Store System.  In this scenario, webERP is made ready in the
> Orders, G/L, etc. to communicate and accept. information from WSS.   This
is
> much the same as the CSV/XML and webservices solutions, isn't it?  A
> separate program called WSS that acts alone or can be used in conjunction
> with WSS ready systems is created.  I wonder what the GPL says about
that...
>
> In this scenario, by the way,  the web store ready part within webERP
would
> be a contribution and meshing any web store becomes much easier.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Unfortunately does GPL make life harder then needed. Some people even
> might
> > start discussion that using acrobat reader and internet explorer should
> also
> > be GPL when they are used for WEB_ERP.
> >
> > When GPL stays the license for WEB-ERP and you want to interfaces with
> other
> > software, then there are two methods:
> > a. CSV/XML files import/export modules are needed to exchange data
(might
> be
> > combined with cron or other batch schedulers)
> > b. develop webservices (nusoap) to extract/insert/update/delete data
into
> > WEB-ERP.
> > c. an API will probably already violate the license
> >
> > I am almost 100% sure that those two options create the work-around.
> > I think that we should develop both interfaces when the license stays
GPL.
> > An API would be the solution which takes the least effort to develop,
but
> an
> > interpretation of the GPL is that the software which uses the API needs
> also
> > be GPL. For this reason, they invented the lesser GPL but I have also
some
> > doubts with the lesser GPL.
> >
> > I prefer to change the license, but when we develop the above
workarounds,
> > then it is also not a problem. It's a pity that we need thistime
consuming
> > method to develop an independ (commercial) module for only and only
> license
> > issues.
> >
> > The advantage is when we develop webservices, then we have a very
flexible
> > and high tech architecture which are promoted by lots of companies like
> > webmethods, magic, .....
> >
> > with best regards,
> >
> > Dick Stins
> >
> > p.s. I understand that the GPL is not enforcing you to distribute the
> code.
> > So you can decide not to distribute the code and serve your clients with
> the
> > ASP model. You install and protect your server and your clients are only
> > using the software/(web)user interface. The client is paying for the
> service
> > instead for license.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works to
> > fall
> > > under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things
are
> > > tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation, which
> I'm
> > > making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems to
> > > protect and encourage contribution much better.
> > >
> > > Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
> > > enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works that
> are
> > > mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.
In
> > > this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the
> > license
> > > they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one sticky
> > > license area of concern.
> > >
> > > Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as
CPL.
> > At
> > > the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and
> promoting
> > > contributions and plan to do so.
> > >
> > > This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
> > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable
> > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then
> > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> > sections
> > > as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution
> > of
> > > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
> > other
> > > licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
> > > regardless of who wrote it.
> > >
> > > If it said the following which drops the second half then there would
be
> > no
> > > concern...
> > >
> > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable
> > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then
> > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.
> > >
> > > You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others
> have
> > > to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing
any
> of
> > > those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our
> customers)
> > > would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report
engine,
> > > production system, shipping system, billing system much different from
> > > webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
> > > Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate the
> GPL.
> > > If I am off-base someone please tell me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that the
> CPL
> > > is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points
made
> by
> > > everyone so far.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
> > > >
> > > > I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit
> back
> > > any
> > > > modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by
the
> > > > lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or
> > version
> > > ii
> > > > makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> > > > licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would
ever
> > > > enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still
> > thinking
> > > > that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is
> that
> > > this
> > > > says ....
> > > >
> > > > I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> > > > I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> > > > If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional
functionality
> > on
> > > > top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should
> > carry
> > > > an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much
to
> > > ask,
> > > > is it?
> > > > If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they
> > charge
> > > > for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> > > > embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always
> will
> > > be.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
> > > >
> > > > I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes
> first
> > > the
> > > > contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the
> > help
> > > > contributions - only one test so far :-(
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't
> > > profess
> > > > > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint
> as
> > it
> > > > > sits today.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing
> > people
> > > > will
> > > > > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the
terms
> > > then
> > > > > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.
> None
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure
> > many
> > > > say
> > > > > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem
is,
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even
> when
> > > > they
> > > > > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.
> > The
> > > > > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it
never
> > > gets
> > > > > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if
> > any,
> > > > > would take on doing anything major that they were going to
> > redistribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> > > > > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source
> with
> > > > good
> > > > > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them
the
> > > > software
> > > > > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and
vertical
> > > > > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or
> > that
> > > > one.
> > > > > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they
understood
> > > that
> > > > > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build
> > those
> > > > into
> > > > > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> > > > >
> > > > > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed
to
> > bug
> > > > > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> > > > marketable
> > > > > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the
> > product
> > > > > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the
> partners
> > > did
> > > > > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of
resources
> > to
> > > > > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> > > > > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money
on
> > it
> > > > and
> > > > > more entities use the system because it can support more
> capabilities.
> > > If
> > > > > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that
were
> > > > > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> > > > >
> > > > > If document management was wanted in the original system there is
> > > nothing
> > > > > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does
> > choose
> > > > to
> > > > > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional
> (or
> > > > not!)
> > > > > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their
experiences...
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute
back
> > any
> > > > > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > > > > circumstances
> > > > > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would
> not
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include
> them
> > > if
> > > > > > deemed appropriate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can
> > download
> > > > > it -
> > > > > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make
it
> as
> > > > easy
> > > > > as
> > > > > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the
weekend
> I
> > > > will
> > > > > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather -
my
> > only
> > > > > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this
so
> > > maybe
> > > > > open
> > > > > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of
> > code
> > > > > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer
> > more -
> > > > what
> > > > > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of
> several
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems
to
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but
> Apache
> > > > > License
> > > > > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable,
> thorough
> > > and
> > > > > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best
> way.
> > > > The
> > > > > > 2000
> > > > > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that
> practically
> > > no
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open
> > Source
> > > > has
> > > > > > come
> > > > > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including
> > Apache
> > > > > > exist.
> > > > > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being
> > > involved
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without
> > > forcing
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice
and
> > it
> > > > > allows
> > > > > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
> > > http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit,
> apache
> > or
> > > > > > > berkely.
> > > > > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance
> to
> > > > > violate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp
> when
> > I
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am
not
> > > into
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and
to
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > best it
> > > > > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their
changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement
of
> > the
> > > > > > lisence
> > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable
> is
> > a
> > > > side
> > > > > > > issue!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a
> newer
> > > and
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for
all
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients
> of
> > > the
> > > > > GPL.
> > > > > > > Have
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean
to
> be
> > > > > pushy,
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > > > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has
a
> > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the
licencing
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my
understanding
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in
a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has
a
> > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the
licencing
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my
understanding
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in
a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would
> prefer
> > > > that
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the
> > > project
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just
> rip
> > > it
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open
> > > source
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability
to
> > > > police
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in
> developing
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In
> terms
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have
> the
> > > > > stomach
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
> > > > Accounting
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project
> and
> > > it
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I
> > think
> > > > if
> > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my
preference
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to
Open-Accounting
> > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their
project
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant
> way
> > > > (from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with
classes
> > and
> > > > > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I
> expect
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement
aim
> > has
> > > > also
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
> > > re-surface
> > > > > as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
> Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1
today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > >
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Phil D. <p.d...@pa...>]

Why wouldn't you make the web-store or whatever open-source and get in
behind? This does not stop you from charging for distribution of it or
for support and installation of it - and so keeping the family fed.

Maybe I miss something. Software is a commodity now people love
programming so there is quality software of most genres around under
GPL. Goodness knows how many web shops. However, knowledge in the form
of good local support, installation and bespoke modifications (that
belong back with the project - but benefit a client) are the things you
can charge for.

Another 2c.

Phil


On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 14:32, skaill wrote:
> Your point about GPL is important.  It seems to say the entire software on
> the computer (and network) must be GPL!
> 
> What about making something "ready"?  For example, web store ready.  Call it
> WSS for Web Store System.  In this scenario, webERP is made ready in the
> Orders, G/L, etc. to communicate and accept. information from WSS.   This is
> much the same as the CSV/XML and webservices solutions, isn't it?  A
> separate program called WSS that acts alone or can be used in conjunction
> with WSS ready systems is created.  I wonder what the GPL says about that...
> 
> In this scenario, by the way,  the web store ready part within webERP would
> be a contribution and meshing any web store becomes much easier.
> 
> Steve
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> >
> > Unfortunately does GPL make life harder then needed. Some people even
> might
> > start discussion that using acrobat reader and internet explorer should
> also
> > be GPL when they are used for WEB_ERP.
> >
> > When GPL stays the license for WEB-ERP and you want to interfaces with
> other
> > software, then there are two methods:
> > a. CSV/XML files import/export modules are needed to exchange data (might
> be
> > combined with cron or other batch schedulers)
> > b. develop webservices (nusoap) to extract/insert/update/delete data into
> > WEB-ERP.
> > c. an API will probably already violate the license
> >
> > I am almost 100% sure that those two options create the work-around.
> > I think that we should develop both interfaces when the license stays GPL.
> > An API would be the solution which takes the least effort to develop, but
> an
> > interpretation of the GPL is that the software which uses the API needs
> also
> > be GPL. For this reason, they invented the lesser GPL but I have also some
> > doubts with the lesser GPL.
> >
> > I prefer to change the license, but when we develop the above workarounds,
> > then it is also not a problem. It's a pity that we need thistime consuming
> > method to develop an independ (commercial) module for only and only
> license
> > issues.
> >
> > The advantage is when we develop webservices, then we have a very flexible
> > and high tech architecture which are promoted by lots of companies like
> > webmethods, magic, .....
> >
> > with best regards,
> >
> > Dick Stins
> >
> > p.s. I understand that the GPL is not enforcing you to distribute the
> code.
> > So you can decide not to distribute the code and serve your clients with
> the
> > ASP model. You install and protect your server and your clients are only
> > using the software/(web)user interface. The client is paying for the
> service
> > instead for license.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works to
> > fall
> > > under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things are
> > > tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation, which
> I'm
> > > making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems to
> > > protect and encourage contribution much better.
> > >
> > > Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
> > > enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works that
> are
> > > mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.  In
> > > this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the
> > license
> > > they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one sticky
> > > license area of concern.
> > >
> > > Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as CPL.
> > At
> > > the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and
> promoting
> > > contributions and plan to do so.
> > >
> > > This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
> > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable
> > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> > sections
> > > as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution
> > of
> > > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
> > other
> > > licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
> > > regardless of who wrote it.
> > >
> > > If it said the following which drops the second half then there would be
> > no
> > > concern...
> > >
> > > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> identifiable
> > > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> > > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.
> > >
> > > You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others
> have
> > > to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing any
> of
> > > those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our
> customers)
> > > would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report engine,
> > > production system, shipping system, billing system much different from
> > > webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
> > > Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate the
> GPL.
> > > If I am off-base someone please tell me.
> > >
> > > Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that the
> CPL
> > > is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points made
> by
> > > everyone so far.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
> > > >
> > > > I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit
> back
> > > any
> > > > modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by the
> > > > lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or
> > version
> > > ii
> > > > makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> > > > licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would ever
> > > > enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still
> > thinking
> > > > that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is
> that
> > > this
> > > > says ....
> > > >
> > > > I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> > > > I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> > > > If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality
> > on
> > > > top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should
> > carry
> > > > an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to
> > > ask,
> > > > is it?
> > > > If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they
> > charge
> > > > for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> > > > embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always
> will
> > > be.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
> > > >
> > > > I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes
> first
> > > the
> > > > contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the
> > help
> > > > contributions - only one test so far :-(
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't
> > > profess
> > > > > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint
> as
> > it
> > > > > sits today.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing
> > people
> > > > will
> > > > > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms
> > > then
> > > > > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.
> None
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure
> > many
> > > > say
> > > > > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is,
> > if
> > > > it's
> > > > > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even
> when
> > > > they
> > > > > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.
> > The
> > > > > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never
> > > gets
> > > > > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if
> > any,
> > > > > would take on doing anything major that they were going to
> > redistribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> > > > > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source
> with
> > > > good
> > > > > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
> > > > software
> > > > > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> > > > > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or
> > that
> > > > one.
> > > > > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood
> > > that
> > > > > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build
> > those
> > > > into
> > > > > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> > > > >
> > > > > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to
> > bug
> > > > > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> > > > marketable
> > > > > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the
> > product
> > > > > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the
> partners
> > > did
> > > > > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources
> > to
> > > > > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> > > > > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on
> > it
> > > > and
> > > > > more entities use the system because it can support more
> capabilities.
> > > If
> > > > > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> > > > > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> > > > >
> > > > > If document management was wanted in the original system there is
> > > nothing
> > > > > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does
> > choose
> > > > to
> > > > > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional
> (or
> > > > not!)
> > > > > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back
> > any
> > > > > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > > > > circumstances
> > > > > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would
> not
> > > > want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include
> them
> > > if
> > > > > > deemed appropriate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can
> > download
> > > > > it -
> > > > > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it
> as
> > > > easy
> > > > > as
> > > > > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend
> I
> > > > will
> > > > > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my
> > only
> > > > > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so
> > > maybe
> > > > > open
> > > > > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of
> > code
> > > > > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer
> > more -
> > > > what
> > > > > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of
> several
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but
> Apache
> > > > > License
> > > > > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable,
> thorough
> > > and
> > > > > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best
> way.
> > > > The
> > > > > > 2000
> > > > > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that
> practically
> > > no
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open
> > Source
> > > > has
> > > > > > come
> > > > > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including
> > Apache
> > > > > > exist.
> > > > > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being
> > > involved
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without
> > > forcing
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and
> > it
> > > > > allows
> > > > > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
> > > http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit,
> apache
> > or
> > > > > > > berkely.
> > > > > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance
> to
> > > > > violate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp
> when
> > I
> > > > see
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not
> > > into
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to
> > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > > best it
> > > > > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of
> > the
> > > > > > lisence
> > > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable
> is
> > a
> > > > side
> > > > > > > issue!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a
> newer
> > > and
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients
> of
> > > the
> > > > > GPL.
> > > > > > > Have
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to
> be
> > > > > pushy,
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > > > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> > > that
> > > > is
> > > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would
> prefer
> > > > that
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the
> > > project
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just
> rip
> > > it
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open
> > > source
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
> > > > police
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in
> developing
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In
> terms
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have
> the
> > > > > stomach
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
> > > > Accounting
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project
> and
> > > it
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I
> > think
> > > > if
> > > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference
> > > would
> > > > be
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting
> > > rather
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant
> way
> > > > (from
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it
> > will
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes
> > and
> > > > > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I
> expect
> > > > will
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim
> > has
> > > > also
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
> > > re-surface
> > > > > as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
> Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> 

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[Phil D. <p.d...@pa...>]

Nope we don't have warehousing management at all. 

Really in most situations it is possible to have the same item in
several different bins. So a single bin location for each item in the
stocks master record doesnt really cut it. 

To do the job properly we are talking about another table for bins - a
record for each available bin perhaps that gets updated with the
quantity of a part. This then gives us the option to suggest a picking
run for the dispatch team - but a whole heap more input .... ideally by
barcode at the time of picking - scanning serial numbers/batch
references as necessary too. This barcode data could then form the basis
of an automated order confirmation/invoicing run. This would be an
interesting project BUT I must now focus on manufacturing once I get
re-energised for another development phase!

Phil


On Wed, 2004-07-28 at 16:32, Chris Bice wrote:
> I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN"
> locations.  Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on
> adding the functionality for that.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Chris

[Web-erp-developers] Warehouse Bin Locations

[Chris B. <cb...@en...>]

I know we have a location for inventory but do we have "BIN" locations.
Like a BIN in the warehouse???  If not, I will plan on adding the
functionality for that.
 
Thanks
 
Chris

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

Your point about GPL is important.  It seems to say the entire software on
the computer (and network) must be GPL!

What about making something "ready"?  For example, web store ready.  Call it
WSS for Web Store System.  In this scenario, webERP is made ready in the
Orders, G/L, etc. to communicate and accept. information from WSS.   This is
much the same as the CSV/XML and webservices solutions, isn't it?  A
separate program called WSS that acts alone or can be used in conjunction
with WSS ready systems is created.  I wonder what the GPL says about that...

In this scenario, by the way,  the web store ready part within webERP would
be a contribution and meshing any web store becomes much easier.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Steve,
>
> Unfortunately does GPL make life harder then needed. Some people even
might
> start discussion that using acrobat reader and internet explorer should
also
> be GPL when they are used for WEB_ERP.
>
> When GPL stays the license for WEB-ERP and you want to interfaces with
other
> software, then there are two methods:
> a. CSV/XML files import/export modules are needed to exchange data (might
be
> combined with cron or other batch schedulers)
> b. develop webservices (nusoap) to extract/insert/update/delete data into
> WEB-ERP.
> c. an API will probably already violate the license
>
> I am almost 100% sure that those two options create the work-around.
> I think that we should develop both interfaces when the license stays GPL.
> An API would be the solution which takes the least effort to develop, but
an
> interpretation of the GPL is that the software which uses the API needs
also
> be GPL. For this reason, they invented the lesser GPL but I have also some
> doubts with the lesser GPL.
>
> I prefer to change the license, but when we develop the above workarounds,
> then it is also not a problem. It's a pity that we need thistime consuming
> method to develop an independ (commercial) module for only and only
license
> issues.
>
> The advantage is when we develop webservices, then we have a very flexible
> and high tech architecture which are promoted by lots of companies like
> webmethods, magic, .....
>
> with best regards,
>
> Dick Stins
>
> p.s. I understand that the GPL is not enforcing you to distribute the
code.
> So you can decide not to distribute the code and serve your clients with
the
> ASP model. You install and protect your server and your clients are only
> using the software/(web)user interface. The client is paying for the
service
> instead for license.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works to
> fall
> > under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things are
> > tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation, which
I'm
> > making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems to
> > protect and encourage contribution much better.
> >
> > Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
> > enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works that
are
> > mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.  In
> > this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the
> license
> > they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one sticky
> > license area of concern.
> >
> > Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as CPL.
> At
> > the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and
promoting
> > contributions and plan to do so.
> >
> > This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
> > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable
> > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
> sections
> > as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution
> of
> > the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
> other
> > licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
> > regardless of who wrote it.
> >
> > If it said the following which drops the second half then there would be
> no
> > concern...
> >
> > These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable
> > sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> > reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> > this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.
> >
> > You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others
have
> > to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing any
of
> > those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our
customers)
> > would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report engine,
> > production system, shipping system, billing system much different from
> > webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
> > Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate the
GPL.
> > If I am off-base someone please tell me.
> >
> > Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that the
CPL
> > is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points made
by
> > everyone so far.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
> > >
> > > I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit
back
> > any
> > > modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by the
> > > lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or
> version
> > ii
> > > makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> > > licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would ever
> > > enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still
> thinking
> > > that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is
that
> > this
> > > says ....
> > >
> > > I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> > > I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> > > If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality
> on
> > > top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should
> carry
> > > an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to
> > ask,
> > > is it?
> > > If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they
> charge
> > > for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> > > embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always
will
> > be.
> > >
> > > I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
> > >
> > > I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes
first
> > the
> > > contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the
> help
> > > contributions - only one test so far :-(
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't
> > profess
> > > > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint
as
> it
> > > > sits today.
> > > >
> > > > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing
> people
> > > will
> > > > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms
> > then
> > > > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.
None
> of
> > > the
> > > > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure
> many
> > > say
> > > > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is,
> if
> > > it's
> > > > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even
when
> > > they
> > > > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.
> The
> > > > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never
> > gets
> > > > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if
> any,
> > > > would take on doing anything major that they were going to
> redistribute.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> > > > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source
with
> > > good
> > > > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
> > > software
> > > > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> > > > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or
> that
> > > one.
> > > > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood
> > that
> > > > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build
> those
> > > into
> > > > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> > > >
> > > > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to
> bug
> > > > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> > > marketable
> > > > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the
> product
> > > > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the
partners
> > did
> > > > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources
> to
> > > > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> > > > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on
> it
> > > and
> > > > more entities use the system because it can support more
capabilities.
> > If
> > > > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> > > > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > If document management was wanted in the original system there is
> > nothing
> > > > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does
> choose
> > > to
> > > > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional
(or
> > > not!)
> > > > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back
> any
> > > > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > > > circumstances
> > > > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would
not
> > > want
> > > > to
> > > > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include
them
> > if
> > > > > deemed appropriate.
> > > > >
> > > > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can
> download
> > > > it -
> > > > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it
as
> > > easy
> > > > as
> > > > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend
I
> > > will
> > > > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my
> only
> > > > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so
> > maybe
> > > > open
> > > > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of
> code
> > > > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer
> more -
> > > what
> > > > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of
several
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but
Apache
> > > > License
> > > > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable,
thorough
> > and
> > > > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best
way.
> > > The
> > > > > 2000
> > > > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that
practically
> > no
> > > > one
> > > > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open
> Source
> > > has
> > > > > come
> > > > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including
> Apache
> > > > > exist.
> > > > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being
> > involved
> > > > and
> > > > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without
> > forcing
> > > > > every
> > > > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and
> it
> > > > allows
> > > > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
> > http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit,
apache
> or
> > > > > > berkely.
> > > > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance
to
> > > > violate
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp
when
> I
> > > see
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not
> > into
> > > > all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to
> be
> > > the
> > > > > > best it
> > > > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes
to
> > the
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of
> the
> > > > > lisence
> > > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable
is
> a
> > > side
> > > > > > issue!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a
newer
> > and
> > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all
> to
> > > get
> > > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients
of
> > the
> > > > GPL.
> > > > > > Have
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to
be
> > > > pushy,
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
> of
> > us
> > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
> of
> > us
> > > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> > that
> > > is
> > > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would
prefer
> > > that
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the
> > project
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just
rip
> > it
> > > > off
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open
> > source
> > > > and
> > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
> > > police
> > > > > the
> > > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in
developing
> > new
> > > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In
terms
> > of
> > > > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have
the
> > > > stomach
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
> > > Accounting
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project
and
> > it
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I
> think
> > > if
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference
> > would
> > > be
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting
> > rather
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project
I
> > > think
> > > > > they
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant
way
> > > (from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it
> will
> > > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes
> and
> > > > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I
expect
> > > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim
> has
> > > also
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
> > re-surface
> > > > as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic
Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > >
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------

> > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

Steve,

Unfortunately does GPL make life harder then needed. Some people even might
start discussion that using acrobat reader and internet explorer should also
be GPL when they are used for WEB_ERP.

When GPL stays the license for WEB-ERP and you want to interfaces with other
software, then there are two methods:
a. CSV/XML files import/export modules are needed to exchange data (might be
combined with cron or other batch schedulers)
b. develop webservices (nusoap) to extract/insert/update/delete data into
WEB-ERP.
c. an API will probably already violate the license

I am almost 100% sure that those two options create the work-around.
I think that we should develop both interfaces when the license stays GPL.
An API would be the solution which takes the least effort to develop, but an
interpretation of the GPL is that the software which uses the API needs also
be GPL. For this reason, they invented the lesser GPL but I have also some
doubts with the lesser GPL.

I prefer to change the license, but when we develop the above workarounds,
then it is also not a problem. It's a pity that we need thistime consuming
method to develop an independ (commercial) module for only and only license
issues.

The advantage is when we develop webservices, then we have a very flexible
and high tech architecture which are promoted by lots of companies like
webmethods, magic, .....

with best regards,

Dick Stins

p.s. I understand that the GPL is not enforcing you to distribute the code.
So you can decide not to distribute the code and serve your clients with the
ASP model. You install and protect your server and your clients are only
using the software/(web)user interface. The client is paying for the service
instead for license.
----- Original Message -----
From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works to
fall
> under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things are
> tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation, which I'm
> making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems to
> protect and encourage contribution much better.
>
> Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
> enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works that are
> mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.  In
> this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the
license
> they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one sticky
> license area of concern.
>
> Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as CPL.
At
> the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and promoting
> contributions and plan to do so.
>
> This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
sections
> as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution
of
> the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for
other
> licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
> regardless of who wrote it.
>
> If it said the following which drops the second half then there would be
no
> concern...
>
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
> sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
> reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
> this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.
>
> You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others have
> to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing any of
> those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our customers)
> would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report engine,
> production system, shipping system, billing system much different from
> webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
> Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate the GPL.
> If I am off-base someone please tell me.
>
> Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that the CPL
> is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points made by
> everyone so far.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
> >
> > I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit back
> any
> > modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by the
> > lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or
version
> ii
> > makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> > licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would ever
> > enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still
thinking
> > that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is that
> this
> > says ....
> >
> > I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> > I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> > If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality
on
> > top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should
carry
> > an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to
> ask,
> > is it?
> > If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they
charge
> > for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> > embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always will
> be.
> >
> > I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
> >
> > I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes first
> the
> > contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the
help
> > contributions - only one test so far :-(
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't
> profess
> > > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint as
it
> > > sits today.
> > >
> > > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing
people
> > will
> > > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms
> then
> > > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.  None
of
> > the
> > > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure
many
> > say
> > > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is,
if
> > it's
> > > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even when
> > they
> > > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.
The
> > > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never
> gets
> > > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if
any,
> > > would take on doing anything major that they were going to
redistribute.
> > >
> > > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> > > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source with
> > good
> > > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
> > software
> > > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> > > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or
that
> > one.
> > > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood
> that
> > > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build
those
> > into
> > > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> > >
> > > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to
bug
> > > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> > marketable
> > > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the
product
> > > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the partners
> did
> > > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources
to
> > > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> > > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on
it
> > and
> > > more entities use the system because it can support more capabilities.
> If
> > > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> > > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> > >
> > > If document management was wanted in the original system there is
> nothing
> > > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does
choose
> > to
> > > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional (or
> > not!)
> > > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> > >
> > > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back
any
> > > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > > circumstances
> > > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not
> > want
> > > to
> > > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them
> if
> > > > deemed appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can
download
> > > it -
> > > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as
> > easy
> > > as
> > > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I
> > will
> > > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my
only
> > > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so
> maybe
> > > open
> > > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of
code
> > > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer
more -
> > what
> > > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several
> of
> > > the
> > > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to
be
> > the
> > > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
> > > License
> > > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough
> and
> > > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.
> > The
> > > > 2000
> > > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically
> no
> > > one
> > > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open
Source
> > has
> > > > come
> > > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including
Apache
> > > > exist.
> > > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being
> involved
> > > and
> > > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without
> forcing
> > > > every
> > > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and
it
> > > allows
> > > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > > >
> > > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
> http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache
or
> > > > > berkely.
> > > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
> > > violate
> > > > it
> > > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when
I
> > see
> > > > the
> > > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not
> into
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to
be
> > the
> > > > > best it
> > > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to
> the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of
the
> > > > lisence
> > > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is
a
> > side
> > > > > issue!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer
> and
> > > > better
> > > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all
to
> > get
> > > > > involved
> > > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of
> the
> > > GPL.
> > > > > Have
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
> > > pushy,
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
of
> us
> > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> that
> > is
> > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > different
> > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing
of
> us
> > > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
> that
> > is
> > > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > > different
> > > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer
> > that
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the
> project
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip
> it
> > > off
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open
> source
> > > and
> > > > > feel
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
> > police
> > > > the
> > > > > GPL
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing
> new
> > > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms
> of
> > > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
> > > stomach
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
> > Accounting
> > > > was
> > > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and
> it
> > > > makes
> > > > > me
> > > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I
think
> > if
> > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference
> would
> > be
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting
> rather
> > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I
> > think
> > > > they
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way
> > (from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it
will
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes
and
> > > > > abstraction
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect
> > will
> > > be
> > > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim
has
> > also
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
> re-surface
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

On further digging Apache 2.0 looks like it allows derivative works to fall
under a different license and I did not mean for that.  These things are
tricky to read.  Yesterday I read the CPL and my interpretation, which I'm
making sure to discuss out in the open for all to comment on, seems to
protect and encourage contribution much better.

Modifications in the way of "derivate works" including bug fixes,
enhancements, etc. are covered by CPL but separated are the works that are
mainly self-contained and "interface" with the CPL licensed program.  In
this way, works not derived from the CPL licensed work can have the license
they want.  With GPL, who knows and it's scary!  That's the one sticky
license area of concern.

Hence, I would be more comfortable with a different license such as CPL.  At
the same time I do believe in protecting the work of webERP and promoting
contributions and plan to do so.

This is the exact area of the GPL that is a concern...
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it.

If it said the following which drops the second half then there would be no
concern...

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections.

You see, we have spent enormous time on our own products (and others have
to) that put food on our plates.  The GPL is a concern when meshing any of
those products.  Some examples of products that businesses (our customers)
would want meshed include a web site/web store engine, a report engine,
production system, shipping system, billing system much different from
webERP and already existing, purchasing system, payroll system, etc.
Companies need many systems but meshing them could easily violate the GPL.
If I am off-base someone please tell me.

Anyway, it is your decision, Phil.  What I believe though, is that the CPL
is probably a better license for webERP based on all of the points made by
everyone so far.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 2:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.
>
> I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit back
any
> modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by the
> lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or version
ii
> makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
> licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would ever
> enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still thinking
> that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is that
this
> says ....
>
> I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
> If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality on
> top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should carry
> an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to
ask,
> is it?
> If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they charge
> for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always will
be.
>
> I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.
>
> I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes first
the
> contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the help
> contributions - only one test so far :-(
>
> Phil
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't
profess
> > to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint as it
> > sits today.
> >
> > No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing people
> will
> > not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms
then
> > don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.  None of
> the
> > licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure many
> say
> > any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is, if
> it's
> > an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even when
> they
> > aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.  The
> > entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never
gets
> > back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if any,
> > would take on doing anything major that they were going to redistribute.
> >
> > I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> > proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source with
> good
> > results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
> software
> > system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> > solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or that
> one.
> > In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood
that
> > sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build those
> into
> > every upgrade for every customer forever more.
> >
> > What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to bug
> > fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
> marketable
> > functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the product
> > should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the partners
did
> > not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources to
> > develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> > marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on it
> and
> > more entities use the system because it can support more capabilities.
If
> > more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> > discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
> >
> > If document management was wanted in the original system there is
nothing
> > stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does choose
> to
> > write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional (or
> not!)
> > that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
> >
> > Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
> > > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> > circumstances
> > > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not
> want
> > to
> > > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them
if
> > > deemed appropriate.
> > >
> > > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
> > it -
> > > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as
> easy
> > as
> > > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I
> will
> > > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> > > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so
maybe
> > open
> > > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> > > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more -
> what
> > > is the best way to encourage that?
> > >
> > > Phil
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > I agree with Dick.
> > > >
> > > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several
of
> > the
> > > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be
> the
> > > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
> > License
> > > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough
and
> > > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.
> The
> > > 2000
> > > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically
no
> > one
> > > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > > >
> > > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source
> has
> > > come
> > > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> > > exist.
> > > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being
involved
> > and
> > > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without
forcing
> > > every
> > > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
> > allows
> > > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > > >
> > > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > > >
> > > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at
http://www.opensource.org/.
> > > >
> > > > Steve
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > > Phil,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > > > berkely.
> > > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
> > violate
> > > it
> > > > > > accidently.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I
> see
> > > the
> > > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dick
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not
into
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be
> the
> > > > best it
> > > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to
the
> > > > project
> > > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> > > lisence
> > > > > > makes
> > > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a
> side
> > > > issue!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer
and
> > > better
> > > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to
> get
> > > > involved
> > > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of
the
> > GPL.
> > > > Have
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
> > pushy,
> > > > just
> > > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of
us
> > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
that
> is
> > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > different
> > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of
us
> > > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding
that
> is
> > > > >ok,
> > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> > different
> > > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer
> that
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the
project
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip
it
> > off
> > > > make
> > > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open
source
> > and
> > > > feel
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
> police
> > > the
> > > > GPL
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing
new
> > > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms
of
> > > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
> > stomach
> > > > for
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
> Accounting
> > > was
> > > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and
it
> > > makes
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think
> if
> > > > anyone
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference
would
> be
> > > for
> > > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting
rather
> > > than
> > > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I
> think
> > > they
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way
> (from
> > > the
> > > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will
> not
> > be
> > > > so
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > > > abstraction
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect
> will
> > be
> > > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has
> also
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will
re-surface
> > as
> > > a
> > > > good
> > > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Daintrees <p.d...@pa...>]

Just to clarify one point in here ....

> that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is that
this
> says ....
>
> I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
> I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it

and natrually charge a fee for their support and/or distribution/marketing
of web-erp

> If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality on
> top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should carry
> an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to
ask,
> is it?
> If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they charge
> for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
> embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always will
be.
>

Phil

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Daintrees <p.d...@pa...>]

Impose away Steve, all comments appreciated as always.

I do feel that use of web-erp should impose an obligation to submit back any
modifications made. I don't for a minute expect people to abide by the
lisence though, and to that extent a lisence like the Apache i or version ii
makes sense since there is no commitment required at all from the
licencee/user. ie it is legalise for the sake of it. No one would ever
enforce it - there is nothing to enforce! Sorry chaps, I am still thinking
that outmoded or not GPL makes sense - my limited understanding is that this
says ....

I am happy for anyone to take the system and use it as is.
I am happy for anyone to distribute and support it
If a user or distributor develops/extends any additional functionality on
top of the existing system then I think that by using it this should carry
an obligation/requirement to give back to the project. Its not much to ask,
is it?
If a user/developer wishes to develop commercial software that they charge
for then they should not be starting off with web-erp and developing
embracing/extending from it - it is open-source software ... always will be.

I hope this is not a problem for your plans Steve.

I think the contributions section is a good idea - but what comes first the
contributions or the contributions area. I'll see how we go with the help
contributions - only one test so far :-(

Phil


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 10:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't profess
> to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint as it
> sits today.
>
> No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing people
will
> not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms then
> don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.  None of
the
> licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure many
say
> any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is, if
it's
> an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even when
they
> aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.  The
> entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never gets
> back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if any,
> would take on doing anything major that they were going to redistribute.
>
> I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source with
good
> results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
software
> system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or that
one.
> In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood that
> sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build those
into
> every upgrade for every customer forever more.
>
> What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to bug
> fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
marketable
> functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the product
> should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the partners did
> not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources to
> develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on it
and
> more entities use the system because it can support more capabilities.  If
> more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
>
> If document management was wanted in the original system there is nothing
> stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does choose
to
> write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional (or
not!)
> that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
>
> Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
> > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> circumstances
> > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not
want
> to
> > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them if
> > deemed appropriate.
> >
> > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
> it -
> > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as
easy
> as
> > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I
will
> > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so maybe
> open
> > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more -
what
> > is the best way to encourage that?
> >
> > Phil
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Dick.
> > >
> > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of
> the
> > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be
the
> > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
> License
> > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.
The
> > 2000
> > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no
> one
> > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > >
> > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source
has
> > come
> > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> > exist.
> > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved
> and
> > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
> > every
> > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
> allows
> > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > >
> > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > >
> > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > > berkely.
> > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
> violate
> > it
> > > > > accidently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I
see
> > the
> > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dick
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be
the
> > > best it
> > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> > > project
> > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> > lisence
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a
side
> > > issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
> > better
> > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to
get
> > > involved
> > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the
> GPL.
> > > Have
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
> pushy,
> > > just
> > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer
that
> > any
> > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it
> off
> > > make
> > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source
> and
> > > feel
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
police
> > the
> > > GPL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
> stomach
> > > for
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
Accounting
> > was
> > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
> > makes
> > > me
> > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think
if
> > > anyone
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would
be
> > for
> > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
> > than
> > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I
think
> > they
> > > may
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way
(from
> > the
> > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will
not
> be
> > > so
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > > abstraction
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect
will
> be
> > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has
also
> > > been
> > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface
> as
> > a
> > > good
> > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

The contributions area could be a good idea for webERP.  For instance, many
example reports, themes, possibly even code for various databases other than
mysql and much more could end up contributed.

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> see comments.
>
> Another license of a very successfull community is the the common public
> license of www.eclipse.org
>
> Dick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
> In gnu there is no obligation to contribute back. There is only a chance
> that someone wants to sell commercially built add-on's, but that is almost
> impossible because it violates the license.
> Or the other way around: When you have a commercial software package and
> want to integrate this with WEB-ERP, then it's very hard because your
> commercial software needs to be released as gnu too!
> That's why lot's of people avoid to use gnu software packages and do not
> build easy add-on's which start as a commercial customisation. They can't
> decide with the gnu license to contribute it later the project. The
decision
> should be made beforehand the add-on's are developed.
> > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> circumstances
> Contribution which you do not want to integrate with WEB-ERP, would be
> excellent to be published like oscommerce does:
> http://www.oscommerce.com/community/contributions
> > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not
want
> to
> > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them if
> > deemed appropriate.
> >
> > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
> it -
> When  WEB-ERP grows, then there are not many people who are able to
maintain
> their own variants without an opensource community. The proof is: there is
> only one popular apache server, there is only one mozilla, there is only
one
> compiere,
> > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as
easy
> as
> > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I
will
> > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so maybe
> open
> > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more -
what
> > is the best way to encourage that?
> Freedom, so no obligations! This will grow the number of installations of
> WEB-ERP and this will also grow the number of contributions.
>
> >
> > Phil
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Dick.
> > >
> > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of
> the
> > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be
the
> > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
> License
> > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.
The
> > 2000
> > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no
> one
> > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > >
> > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source
has
> > come
> > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> > exist.
> > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved
> and
> > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
> > every
> > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
> allows
> > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > >
> > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > >
> > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > > berkely.
> > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
> violate
> > it
> > > > > accidently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I
see
> > the
> > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dick
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be
the
> > > best it
> > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> > > project
> > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> > lisence
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a
side
> > > issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
> > better
> > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to
get
> > > involved
> > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the
> GPL.
> > > Have
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
> pushy,
> > > just
> > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer
that
> > any
> > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it
> off
> > > make
> > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source
> and
> > > feel
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
police
> > the
> > > GPL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
> stomach
> > > for
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
Accounting
> > was
> > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
> > makes
> > > me
> > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think
if
> > > anyone
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would
be
> > for
> > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
> > than
> > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I
think
> > they
> > > may
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way
(from
> > the
> > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will
not
> be
> > > so
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > > abstraction
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect
will
> be
> > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has
also
> > > been
> > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface
> as
> > a
> > > good
> > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

Steve,

Great explanation.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't profess
> to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint as it
> sits today.
>
> No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing people
will
> not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms then
> don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.  None of
the
> licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure many
say
> any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is, if
it's
> an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even when
they
> aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.  The
> entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never gets
> back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if any,
> would take on doing anything major that they were going to redistribute.
>
> I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
> proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source with
good
> results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the
software
> system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
> solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or that
one.
> In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood that
> sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build those
into
> every upgrade for every customer forever more.
>
> What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to bug
> fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not
marketable
> functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the product
> should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the partners did
> not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources to
> develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
> marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on it
and
> more entities use the system because it can support more capabilities.  If
> more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
> discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.
>
> If document management was wanted in the original system there is nothing
> stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does choose
to
> write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional (or
not!)
> that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.
>
> Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
> > developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
> circumstances
> > the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not
want
> to
> > build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them if
> > deemed appropriate.
> >
> > This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
> it -
> > most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as
easy
> as
> > possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I
will
> > look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> > caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so maybe
> open
> > slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> > received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more -
what
> > is the best way to encourage that?
> >
> > Phil
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > I agree with Dick.
> > >
> > > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of
> the
> > > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be
the
> > > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
> License
> > > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> > > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.
The
> > 2000
> > > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no
> one
> > > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> > >
> > > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source
has
> > come
> > > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> > exist.
> > > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved
> and
> > > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
> > every
> > > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
> allows
> > > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> > >
> > > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> > >
> > > The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > > Phil,
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > > berkely.
> > > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
> violate
> > it
> > > > > accidently.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I
see
> > the
> > > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dick
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into
> all
> > > the
> > > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be
the
> > > best it
> > > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> > > project
> > > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> > lisence
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a
side
> > > issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
> > better
> > > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to
get
> > > involved
> > > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the
> GPL.
> > > Have
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
> pushy,
> > > just
> > > > > > > asking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Steve
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> > <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > > multilanguage
> > > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > > customizing
> > > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that
is
> > > >ok,
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
> different
> > > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer
that
> > any
> > > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it
> off
> > > make
> > > > > > cool
> > > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source
> and
> > > feel
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to
police
> > the
> > > GPL
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
> stomach
> > > for
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open
Accounting
> > was
> > > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
> > makes
> > > me
> > > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think
if
> > > anyone
> > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would
be
> > for
> > > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
> > than
> > > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I
think
> > they
> > > may
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way
(from
> > the
> > > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will
not
> be
> > > so
> > > > > easy
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > > abstraction
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect
will
> be
> > > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has
also
> > > been
> > > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface
> as
> > a
> > > good
> > > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > > >
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

see comments.

Another license of a very successfull community is the the common public
license of www.eclipse.org

Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
In gnu there is no obligation to contribute back. There is only a chance
that someone wants to sell commercially built add-on's, but that is almost
impossible because it violates the license.
Or the other way around: When you have a commercial software package and
want to integrate this with WEB-ERP, then it's very hard because your
commercial software needs to be released as gnu too!
That's why lot's of people avoid to use gnu software packages and do not
build easy add-on's which start as a commercial customisation. They can't
decide with the gnu license to contribute it later the project. The decision
should be made beforehand the add-on's are developed.
> developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
circumstances
Contribution which you do not want to integrate with WEB-ERP, would be
excellent to be published like oscommerce does:
http://www.oscommerce.com/community/contributions
> the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not want
to
> build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them if
> deemed appropriate.
>
> This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
it -
When  WEB-ERP grows, then there are not many people who are able to maintain
their own variants without an opensource community. The proof is: there is
only one popular apache server, there is only one mozilla, there is only one
compiere,
> most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as easy
as
> possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I will
> look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so maybe
open
> slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more - what
> is the best way to encourage that?
Freedom, so no obligations! This will grow the number of installations of
WEB-ERP and this will also grow the number of contributions.

>
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > I agree with Dick.
> >
> > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of
the
> > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be the
> > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
License
> > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.  The
> 2000
> > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no
one
> > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> >
> > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source has
> come
> > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> exist.
> > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved
and
> > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
> every
> > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
allows
> > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> >
> > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> >
> > The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > berkely.
> > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
violate
> it
> > > > accidently.
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I see
> the
> > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > >
> > > > Dick
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into
all
> > the
> > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be  the
> > best it
> > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> > project
> > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> lisence
> > > > makes
> > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a side
> > issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
> better
> > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to get
> > involved
> > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the
GPL.
> > Have
> > > > > you
> > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
pushy,
> > just
> > > > > > asking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > multilanguage
> > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > customizing
> > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> > >ok,
> > > > > right?
> > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
different
> > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > multilanguage
> > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > customizing
> > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> > >ok,
> > > > > right?
> > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
different
> > > > forum?!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer that
> any
> > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project
for
> > the
> > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it
off
> > make
> > > > > cool
> > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source
and
> > feel
> > > > no
> > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to police
> the
> > GPL
> > > > is
> > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
stomach
> > for
> > > > it
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open Accounting
> was
> > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
> makes
> > me
> > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think if
> > anyone
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would be
> for
> > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
> than
> > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I think
> they
> > may
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way (from
> the
> > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will not
be
> > so
> > > > easy
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > abstraction
> > > > at
> > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect will
be
> > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has also
> > been
> > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface
as
> a
> > good
> > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...>]

I prefer a license which enables to integrate/interface WEB-ERP with other
licenses (commercial, open source) or customise it and distribute it with
additional (commercial) license conditions.

I am not sure which license covers that the best.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> I agree with Dick.
>
> I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of the
> licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be the
> best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache License
> 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.  The
2000
> version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no one
> would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
>
> The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source has
come
> a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
exist.
> I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved and
> contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
every
> single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it allows
> choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
>
> That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
>
> The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > Phil,
> > >
> > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> berkely.
> > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to violate
it
> > > accidently.
> > >
> > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I see
the
> > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > >
> > > Dick
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > >
> > >
> > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into all
> the
> > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be  the
> best it
> > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> project
> > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
lisence
> > > makes
> > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a side
> issue!
> > > >
> > > > Phil
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
better
> > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to get
> involved
> > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the GPL.
> Have
> > > > you
> > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be pushy,
> just
> > > > > asking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
<Web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> multilanguage
> > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > customizing
> > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> >ok,
> > > > right?
> > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a different
> > > forum?!
> > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> multilanguage
> > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > customizing
> > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> >ok,
> > > > right?
> > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a different
> > > forum?!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer that
any
> > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project for
> the
> > > > > benefit
> > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it off
> make
> > > > cool
> > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source and
> feel
> > > no
> > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to police
the
> GPL
> > > is
> > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > functionality
> > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > multi-language
> > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the stomach
> for
> > > it
> > > > > when
> > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open Accounting
was
> > > > > started -
> > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
makes
> me
> > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think if
> anyone
> > > > could
> > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would be
for
> > > > > resources
> > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
than
> > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I think
they
> may
> > > > > have
> > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way (from
the
> > > > > computer
> > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will not be
> so
> > > easy
> > > > > for
> > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> abstraction
> > > at
> > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect will be
> > > > > compromised
> > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has also
> been
> > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface as
a
> good
> > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Phil
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing

[skaill <sk...@ro...>]

Please understand that what I say I don't mean to impose.  I don't profess
to have all the answers and am just one person giving my viewpoint as it
sits today.

No, I don't think there should be an obligation.  To me, forcing people will
not motivate them and I don't think the "if you don't like the terms then
don't use it" will promote the software or contributions to it.  None of the
licenses in my opinion will push anyone to give back anyway.  Sure many say
any changes must continue to go under the same license.  Problem is, if it's
an end user then they're making the changes for themselves.  Even when they
aren't, they make the entity they give it to aware of the license.  The
entity doesn't care because they're just there to use it so it never gets
back to the main pool anyway.  With the GPL I don't think many, if any,
would take on doing anything major that they were going to redistribute.

I have seen something interesting take place from the inside of a
proprietary software company that could be applied to Open Source with good
results.  The software company had "partners" and supplied them the software
system with code.  The partners could create horizontal and vertical
solutions.  They could also do customizations for this customer or that one.
In the course of the partners maintaining the system they understood that
sharing their fixes, etc. meant they did not have to custom build those into
every upgrade for every customer forever more.

What this translated to is that the partners rapidly contributed to bug
fixes, enhancements of existing functionality and needed but not marketable
functionality which their customers needed and usually felt the product
should have so weren't willing to pay much for it.  What the partners did
not give away was when they dedicated a huge investment of resources to
develop a particular customized solution for the system and it was
marketable on its own merits.  Great, the partners can make money on it and
more entities use the system because it can support more capabilities.  If
more entities use the system then look at all the benefits that were
discussed at the beginning of this paragraph.

If document management was wanted in the original system there is nothing
stopping anyone from creating it.  Later, many times someone does choose to
write a similar solution for the system, possibly less functional (or not!)
that they are willing to donate.  That is their choice.

Maybe Dick or some others have more to say from their experiences...

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
To: <web...@li...>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing


> Do you not think there should be an obligation to contribute back any
> developments. I really just want a right of refusal ie in most
circumstances
> the specifics of a particular business will be such that I would not want
to
> build them in, but at least be given the opportunity to include them if
> deemed appropriate.
>
> This stuff is kind of academic in many respects since you can download
it -
> most folks will with nary a second thought. However, lets make it as easy
as
> possible - I did look at the Apache first version over the weekend I will
> look at the mk II one. It basically looked like open slather - my only
> caveat is that I want contributions back - I cant enforce this so maybe
open
> slather would encourage more feedback?  The few contributions of code
> received to date have been much appreciated but I would prefer more - what
> is the best way to encourage that?
>
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> To: <web...@li...>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
>
>
> > I agree with Dick.
> >
> > I have done considerable reading over the past few days of several of
the
> > licenses and the principles of OSI.  The Apache license seems to be the
> > best.  Not Apache Software License 1.1 created in 2000 but Apache
License
> > 2.0 created in 2004.  It seems to be the most reasonable, thorough and
> > designed to move Open Source forward in the quickest and best way.  The
> 2000
> > version was too open.  GPL is extremely closed so that practically no
one
> > would ever want to do anything with a product having it.
> >
> > The newest version of GPL was created in 1991.  I think Open Source has
> come
> > a long way since that time and some better licenses including Apache
> exist.
> > I think it is reasonable.  It leads to maximum entities being involved
and
> > contributing.  It protects original and derived works without forcing
> every
> > single thing done to be a contribution.  I believe in choice and it
allows
> > choice to everyone while protecting that which already exists.
> >
> > That's just my opinion after reading it all over.
> >
> > The OSI and many licenses can be found at http://www.opensource.org/.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Phil Daintree" <p.d...@pa...>
> > To: <web...@li...>
> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> >
> >
> > > I will do a bit of reading Dick.
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2004-07-24 at 11:40, Stins, Dick wrote:
> > > > Phil,
> > > >
> > > > I prefer a less restrictive license like mozilla, mit, apache or
> > berkely.
> > > > GNU is too hard to understand and you have a bigger chance to
violate
> it
> > > > accidently.
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's also better to for the acceptance of web-erp when I see
> the
> > > > acceptance of projects like mozilla, apache and compiere.
> > > >
> > > > Dick
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...>
> > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 1:19 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I certainly wouldn't want a restrictive lisence - I am not into
all
> > the
> > > > > legalise - I just want the system to be widely used and to be  the
> > best it
> > > > > can be - encouraging developers to feedback their changes to the
> > project
> > > > > seems like a good way and to have this as a requirement of the
> lisence
> > > > makes
> > > > > sense to me. The fact that it is completely unenforcable is a side
> > issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > Phil
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...>
> > > > > To: <web...@li...>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:10 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In regard to the GPL, I think I was reading about a newer and
> better
> > > > > > licensing that seems like a better encouragement for all to get
> > involved
> > > > > > including business yet keeps the necessary ingredients of the
GPL.
> > Have
> > > > > you
> > > > > > considered that license instead, Phil?  I don't mean to be
pushy,
> > just
> > > > > > asking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Steve
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...>
> > > > > > To: "Web ERP Developers"
> <Web...@li...>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:36 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In reponse to Steve's question:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > multilanguage
> > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > customizing
> > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> > >ok,
> > > > > right?
> > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
different
> > > > forum?!
> > > > > > > >Having said that, if we run into a customer who has a
> > multilanguage
> > > > > > > requirement what are the concerns >under the licencing of us
> > > > customizing
> > > > > > > webERP as I've discussed for them? To my understanding that is
> > >ok,
> > > > > right?
> > > > > > > Should I be asking this type of question here or in a
different
> > > > forum?!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am pretty relaxed about all this stuff. I would prefer that
> any
> > > > > > > modifications made were at least offered back to the project
for
> > the
> > > > > > benefit
> > > > > > > of any others. However, I am aware of folks who just rip it
off
> > make
> > > > > cool
> > > > > > > modifications which they do not then include as open source
and
> > feel
> > > > no
> > > > > > > prick of conscience in doing so. Clearly my ability to police
> the
> > GPL
> > > > is
> > > > > > > pretty limited - I am much more interested in developing new
> > > > > functionality
> > > > > > > thats why I plead and beg for help in doing so. In terms of
> > > > > multi-language
> > > > > > > stuff which might compromise stability I didn't have the
stomach
> > for
> > > > it
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > Sherif and Hani wanted to have a go that's why Open Accounting
> was
> > > > > > started -
> > > > > > > it looks like they are floundering with this project and it
> makes
> > me
> > > > > > > particularly nervous in going down that track too. I think if
> > anyone
> > > > > could
> > > > > > > have pulled it off those guys could and my preference would be
> for
> > > > > > resources
> > > > > > > and help re language support to go to Open-Accounting rather
> than
> > > > > > > re-inventing the wheel with web-erp.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure where they are up to with their project I think
> they
> > may
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > re-written large chunks of web-erp in a more elegant way (from
> the
> > > > > > computer
> > > > > > > scientist/purist perspective) - but I expect that it will not
be
> > so
> > > > easy
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > a business person to get their head into with classes and
> > abstraction
> > > > at
> > > > > > > every turn. This is another aim of web-erp that I expect will
be
> > > > > > compromised
> > > > > > > by Open-Accounting. The low bandwidth requirement aim has also
> > been
> > > > > > > steamrollered. However, I am still hoping it will re-surface
as
> a
> > good
> > > > > > > multi-language alternative.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Phil
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > >
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > > Web...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > > Web...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > > Web...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web-erp-developers mailing list
> > Web...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers
> >
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Web-erp-developers mailing list
> Web...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/web-erp-developers

[Web-erp-developers] Re: Membership

[Daintrees <p.d...@pa...>]

Hi Eddie,

>
> I've been translating the web-erp to spanish (version 2.8)
> and I'll be glad if I could be part of this project, I have
> it almost translating,

Fantastic.

Would it be possible to include your spanish version as a download of the
project - if I am rigorous with my change.log then this should allow you to
keep the Spanish version up to date? If you could join the
web-erp-developers and web-erp-users lists you could support Spanish users
of your system.

>also I'm insteresting in convert the
> system to work in an Oracle database, although I need some
> help to better understand the specific use of some items on
> the system.
>

To do this you need to:

1. Take the database script - either sql/web-erp-demo.sql or
sql/weberp-new.sql and modify it to sql that oracle likes to create the
oracle db.
2. Make a copy of includes/ConnectDB.inc and edit it for the Oracle specific
PHP functions. The one that may cause difficulties is Last Insert ID - there
some work arounds I believe.
3. Test the system works on every page - some of the sql may not be
compatible with Oracle (I dont think there'll be massive issues here ..... I
have tried to use pretty generic SQL - there will certainly be some)

> I think the spanish availability of the system is a good
> alternative.
>

Me too!


> To tell you something about me, I can tell you I've been
> developing  systems for the last 15 years, and the last 8
> years using Oracle, and right now I'm trying to improve my
> Php skill.

Glad to have you lending your help with web-erp.

Phil

[Web-erp-developers] Re: WebErp Development

[Daintrees <p.d...@pa...>]

Hi Morne,

This sounds like good stuff.

Could you make a diff file of your files against those in the latest CVS =
- you would need to checkout the system in CVS. A single file covering =
all the scripts would be fine. This shows me just the changes you made =
so that I can see them and apply them easily. I am appreciative of all =
contributions ...especially when coded in a consistent way with the rest =
of the application (the PEAR coding guidelines are similar -this just =
about the conventions used in naming and layout of constructs - =
http://pear.php.net/manual/en/standards.php)

I have a mailing list for others interested in the development of the =
project - this way when we discuss modifications we can get a range of =
opinions from differing perspectives.


Phil



----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Morne=20
  To: dai...@us...=20
  Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:17 PM
  Subject: WebErp Development


  Hi There

  =20

  I want to get involved in the development of the WebErp product. I =
have all ready made some changes to the product and would like to =
contribute the changes if you think that it beneficial to the product. I =
am a software developer from South Africa and a great fan of Open =
Source.

  =20

  Changes And Enhancements Made So Far:

  1. Made a change in the PrintCustOrder_generic.php file the veriable =
that sent the page size to the function was overridden (an array set to =
a text) and in my configuration it caused an error.

  2. Payments.php=20

  =B7        Built in persistent batches to save the batch to the =
database.

  =B7        Can only process payments for this year and the previous =
year taking the year end into account.

  =20

  3. CustomerReceipt.php

  =B7        Built in persistent batches save to DB.

  =20

  4. GLTrialBalance.php

  Show debits and credits and color code (Credits - Green and Debits - =
Red)

  Show the Profit/Loss when the Profit/Loss sections are done and the =
balance sheet items begin.

  Colors stay the same for Profit/Loss and the balance sheet items.

   5.
Profit and Loss & Balance Sheet =B7    Show debits and credits and
color code (Credits - Green and Debits - Red)6. GLJournal.php

  =B7        Can only process a journal for this year and the previous =
year taking the year end into account.

  =B7        Fix error - if the date to process journal is a invalid =
date the line is still inserted after the warning was given

  =20

              7. I am building a generic Import Export function but it =
is not finished yet.

  =20

  Regards

  Morne Rossouw

  ________________________________________________Message sent using =
GamCo WebMail