Change license of sale_automatic_workflow to LGPL

[xavier-bouquiaux]

Hi,

sale_automatic_workflow is currently AGPL.

Since it is useful module to in bridging enterprise modules , we would like to change it to LGPL.

As authors and contributors, do you have any objection to that @guewen, @sebastienbeau , @lepistone , @sbidoul , @gurneyalex , @SodexisTeam , @lasley , @tfossoul , @phuctranfxvn ?

Regards

Xbo

[pedrobaeza]

For me it shouldn't be changed to ease the use of not open modules. Get or develop OCA alternatives to that enterprise module.

[rvalyi]

Hello, I'm the original creator of the module, though I didn't touched it for the last 7 years or so (hehe Brazilian localization you are a bit complex...). I think a bit like Pedro.

In fact I think we should make the move to LGPL but only for very small technical modules that are about to be easily replicated by Odoo SA. Because a suboptimal clone would appear anyway and it would just make our AGPL marginal or raise the entry barrier to the OCA when it touches to master data. But I don't think Odoo SA is about to replicate such module, I think they are way too busy reinventing the wheel with their web framework and their toy website.

This is my preference but if the active contributors from the recent years wish to make the move, I won't oppose it either.

[sbidoul]

Hi everyone,

The list of contributors pinged in the OP is incomplete according to the commit history (which itself is partial). So it's going to be hard to reach everyone.

I always have mixed feelings with these license issues. There is this tension between the legitimate will to protect our open source code against non-free derivatives, and the necessary need to attract more users and contributors.

Now, in practice, to be honest, I suspect that the vast majority of developers don't even realize they are violating licenses, unless they deploy manifestoo check-license in their CI, or they try to push their code to apps.odoo.com. On the opposite, I also know companies who forbid AGPL completely because of the fear of these issues. But in the vast majority of cases I suspect people just don't read or care or understand the difference between LGPL and AGPL, so the protection is all relative IMO (no flamethrowers please, it's just a personal opinion :).

For glue and orchestration modules such as base_rest, fastapi, queue_job, graphql... we are pretty much obliged to move to LGPL (which we did) otherwise integrators who use OE could not use them in real world deployments. And these contributors are important as, in the end, they help funnel end user requirements and funds to OCA.

I a way, sale_automatic_workflow is also a (relatively) low level orchestration module. So I'd be in favor of changing the license, but we are not going to force it if authors have strong feeling about it staying AGPL.

PS: in this case we are writing a connector with a third party platform which manages rental and the customer has already deployed OE rental (which worked out of the box for them).

[rvalyi]

Hello @sbidoul as for my authorship, I cannot even remember how much I oriented @sebastienbeau or coded stuff myself as as you can see it dates back to 2011 or so (Launchpad times). It's strange I'm not listed in the contributors as I designed the initial version pretty much. But as I said, that was long ago, I don't care so much, I think people who re-coded it largely since then can decide.

As for the license violations. We all know there are AGPL violations. I would say as long as they are ocasional end users violations they are inevitable and don't matter so much. IMHO what the AGPL in the OCA should prevent is large editors such as Odoo SA themselves, big partners, big Odoo integrators to start a business violating AGPL licenses massively. If the violation is massive, then yes, investors will probably run away from bad players and the OCA could certainly pressure the offenders. Say you developed a very complex localization like we did the last thing we want is to have to compete with free loaders not playing by the same rules and violating the AGPL of your code inside proprietary products. Occasional violations don't matter so much, they won't put you out of business.

[lepistone]

Hi! I couldn't find any commits of mine in sale_automatic_workflow, which commits are you referring to?

On a personal level, I am usually OK with more permissive licensing.

However, the vast majority of my contributions to the Odoo ecosystem where made as en employee of Agile BG and Camptocamp, and I think they should decide what to do. So for any commits with author leonardo.pistone@agilebg.com and leonardo.pistone@camptocamp.com, please contact those companies. If you do find a personal contribution of mine, feel free to contact me again.

[rvalyi]

I think @sebastienbeau was also an essential contributor and should be asked.

[guewen]

Hi!

I would not be against the change, for the same reasons evoked above by others.

That being said, I'm in the same boat as @lepistone, my contributions on this module were probably all done on behalf of my previous employer Camptocamp, for these I have no say.