Menu
▾
▴
web-erp-developers
|
From: Phil D. <ph...@du...> - 2004-07-23 00:36:41
|
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 |
|
From: Hani N. <ha...@na...> - 2004-07-23 01:12:52
|
Phil Daintree wrote: >*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* >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 > > > > Hi Phil, I am no longer involved with OpenAccounting, but I do look into it every now and then. I would like to point out though that multi-language support has been available for a while now (although (at the time I left)) no one has submitted translations. It does have an Arabic translation which Sherif uses.(ie it can even support Right-To-Left languages) I don't see how adding multilanguage support has in any way complicated the code. Instead of print "Hello" you say print _("Hello"), sure you are adding a few characters to your pages, but it a small price to pay for such a useful functionality. I also don't understand your arguments against more structured code. Classes are a great way of managing code. As for the argument that a business person could not get their heads around it! Well if they can figure out php and webwerp, classes are not going to stop them. What did you mean by low bandwidth? How have we affected bandwidth? and what bandwidth? Don't get me wrong I think webwerp is superb, but your arguments when it comes to OpenAcounting are a bit misleading. Having said that I think it is a shame we forked, since the goals of both projects are soo similar. What I think would be really cool is to have an accounting engine, which defines the business logic and decoupling it from the interface. So you could then have multiple interfaces, such as a web interface, a rich-client interface etc... Anyway way, time to sleep! Good luck and take care, Hani |
|
From: Phil D. <ph...@du...> - 2004-07-23 02:02:16
|
Hani, Great to hear from you again.... > What did you mean by low bandwidth? How have we affected bandwidth? and > what bandwidth? By this I meant that the functionality for list boxes of items, supplier and customers, whilst good for the home and very small business user it does means that web-pages for any significant business with more than a few hundred customers will be unworkable over a dial up connection with large amounts of data required to populate the boxes. Why would anyone want any other kind of front end? Phil |
|
From: Hani N. <ha...@na...> - 2004-07-23 08:16:04
|
Phil Daintree wrote: >*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro* >Hani, > >Great to hear from you again.... > > > >>What did you mean by low bandwidth? How have we affected bandwidth? and >>what bandwidth? >> >> > >By this I meant that the functionality for list boxes of items, supplier and >customers, whilst good for the home and very small business user it does >means that web-pages for any significant business with more than a few >hundred customers will be unworkable over a dial up connection with large >amounts of data required to populate the boxes. > >Why would anyone want any other kind of front end? > >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 > > > > Ah the lists.... I have to agree I am also not a fan of the lists although not for the bandwidth reason. Since I don't actually use an accounting program I simply don't know which approach is best. Hani |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-23 12:24:36
|
Hoi, Hani suggested: "What I think would be really cool is to have an accounting engine, which defines the business logic and decoupling it from the interface. So you could then have multiple interfaces, such as a web interface, a rich-client interface etc..." I think that this is a step to a better architecture. Not for replacing the user interface, but for interfaces with other software like webshops which send their transactions directly to a web-erp. When it's calling the web-erp business logic layer, all business rules of web-erp will be checked by the same code used by the web-erp user interface. This architecture will saves time and maintenance when adding functionalities like these or when you have to check a business rule at different places in the user interface (just call the method or function with the implemented business rule instead of coding it twice or more.) With best regards, Dick Stins ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:01 AM Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing > Hani, > > Great to hear from you again.... > > > What did you mean by low bandwidth? How have we affected bandwidth? and > > what bandwidth? > > By this I meant that the functionality for list boxes of items, supplier and > customers, whilst good for the home and very small business user it does > means that web-pages for any significant business with more than a few > hundred customers will be unworkable over a dial up connection with large > amounts of data required to populate the boxes. > > Why would anyone want any other kind of front end? > > 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 |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-23 16:05:21
|
Just for interest sake, it is quite possible not too far down the road that our company will be going through webERP to do the multilanguage in the most unobtrusive way possible as we have been discussing in the forum. We don't need to do it immediately, as there are other priorities and we can get by for now with what is but quite possible we will need to do soon for our co-conspirators in Denmark. If I may comment on the need for alternate interfaces I believe there are many reasons. You may want to change the interface to be better for certain devices such as the wireless group. Possibly for handicapped, especially blind. Multilanguage we've discussed. Maybe just because people want to customize the interface for the particular work they do. Sometimes a company may want ONLY certain options appearing for the shipper or for the accounts receivable clerk. Yes, security restricts then but options plus on-the-fly context based interface changing can be more effective is several situations. Having said this, it is still most important to be able to rely on the system and be able for as many people to easily code within it without mistakes and confusion. Congratulations to Phil and the group here for achieving and retaining that primary goal. While I believe in 3 tier (database, business rules and front end) where it makes good sense, there are times when maybe it is good theory or a compromise between both approaches is the best alternative. Sometimes I have found also that 3 tiered using higher technology inherently ends up slowing the code down and overcomplicates the contextual reading/understanding of it. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Daintree" <ph...@du...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing > Hani, > > Great to hear from you again.... > > > What did you mean by low bandwidth? How have we affected bandwidth? and > > what bandwidth? > > By this I meant that the functionality for list boxes of items, supplier and > customers, whilst good for the home and very small business user it does > means that web-pages for any significant business with more than a few > hundred customers will be unworkable over a dial up connection with large > amounts of data required to populate the boxes. > > Why would anyone want any other kind of front end? > > 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 |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-23 16:16:53
|
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 |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-23 22:57:28
|
Steve, Please tell me more about this better license. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:10 PM 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 > |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-23 23:04:31
|
I'm new to this Open Source licensing thing, Dick. I read it all over a few weeks ago and will try to dig back into it now to discuss it further with you. At the moment I'm foggy on it and there's no sense putting my foot further into my mouth ;) I know where I read all about licensing was on the OSI here http://www.opensource.org/ Possibly I misunderstood and the GPL, which I believe webERP is under is the best. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stins, Dick" <DR...@Zi...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:01 PM Subject: Re: [Web-erp-developers] Lisencing > Steve, > > Please tell me more about this better license. > > Dick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "skaill" <sk...@ro...> > To: <web...@li...> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 6:10 PM > 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 |
|
From: Daintrees <p.d...@pa...> - 2004-07-23 23:18:15
|
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 > |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-24 10:36:18
|
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 |
|
From: Phil D. <p.d...@pa...> - 2004-07-25 03:44:08
|
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 > |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-27 00:43:40
|
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 |
|
From: Phil D. <ph...@du...> - 2004-07-27 03:01:45
|
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 > |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-27 10:33:39
|
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 |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-27 12:39:01
|
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 |
|
From: Daintrees <p.d...@pa...> - 2004-07-28 06:58:51
|
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 > |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-28 11:12:15
|
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 |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-28 12:52:24
|
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 |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-28 13:32:07
|
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 |
|
From: Phil D. <p.d...@pa...> - 2004-07-29 07:42:49
|
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 > |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-30 19:52:54
|
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 |
|
From: Daintrees <p.d...@pa...> - 2004-07-30 23:33:37
|
> > 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 |
|
From: skaill <sk...@ro...> - 2004-07-31 12:27:37
|
It's awesome that you have created webERP, Phil. Even more awesome that you have made it available for others and for free. Regardless of who creates what and for how much, in general and when doing consulting work for a company (customer) it is important not to reinvent the wheel. If we go crazy working on a product for months and charge a customer thousands when someone is selling what would have done the customer for $400 or it is Open Source then we aren't going to look too good in the long run. At the same time there has to be enough work and profit to make it worth doing for a customer in the case of the product not making us a profit by selling it. This is the challenge but I believe there are advantages as well as disadvantages and there are ways to make it work for all. People decide what software to use in the same way they vote for a president/prime minister. If it looks good and says the right things then it must be good. Unfortunate, but reality. To get more people to consider a good product then it kind of means that the fluff becomes necessary. Sometimes fluff isn't just fluff as it would first seem as well. For example research over the years shows that filling more than about half of a screen leads to slower interfacing. 1 in 20 Caucasian males are color blind. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daintrees" <p.d...@pa...> To: <web...@li...> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 7:34 PM Subject: [Web-erp-developers] How Does Open Source Dovetail with the Commercial World > > > > 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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 |
|
From: Stins, D. <DR...@Zi...> - 2004-07-29 08:38:54
|
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 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X