search

Tecnativa / doodba

Base image for making the creation of customized Odoo environments a piece of cake
Apache License 2.0
436 stars 305 forks source link

Question on License #4

Closed lasley closed 7 years ago

lasley commented 7 years ago

Any thoughts on licensing this under MIT or BSD? I'd prefer to not have any of my infrastructure under (*)GPL if at all possible, even if it is hosting an LGPL app.

Note: the Python base & Postgres sidekick are MIT

pedrobaeza commented 7 years ago

What are the advantages of that licenses?

lasley commented 7 years ago

Really it all boils down to permissions for use. Client-type applications license well under (*)GPL, but libraries and development headers are better under a more permissive license.

This base is meant to be under many layers of other systems, all of which would need to be licensed under LGPL if the base is licensed as such. Same with any modifications that someone makes to the base (think the scaffolds - which could even contain my passwords or keys).

Comparing this against MIT or BSD though, modifications can be freely made and distributed under other licenses. New systems can be directly linked without enforcing terms on them as well. Other than simply maintaining the license and copyright notice on your software, anyways.

Sure, this all seems like crap from the perspective of having just designed a piece of software that you want people to continue to share. Why would you want to let someone close source a derivative of your work? Or allow them to make changes on your work without giving them back?

The tradeoff to this is a matter of software adoption. A perfect example is the fact that I will not be able to use this in my infrastructure & will have to design a competing system - fracturing our basically non-existent Odoo Docker ecosystem. I will obviously be contributing my changes back regardless of license permissiveness, but there's also possibly other things, both proprietary and open source, that I cannot put on the relicensing table.

Take a look at most of the Python libraries you use, Python, Docker, Linux, Git, Ruby, Django, Rails, etc. Most everything meeting the definition of a system or library will be licensed under MIT, BSD, or possibly Apache.

This is a pretty good visualization that we keep in our wiki:

pastedgraphic-1

pedrobaeza commented 7 years ago

I don't have a strong opinion about this. Let's see what @Yajo thinks that is the author of the work.

yajo commented 7 years ago

Docker is Apache 2.0, and the FSF recommends that one when you need a permissive license. You can't combine with GPL<3, but I see that as a feature too, so I'll use that one 😉

With it:

Contributors provide an express grant of patent rights. Licensed works, modifications, and larger works may be distributed under different terms and without source code.

Seems good enough.

I'll use CC0 for the scaffolding branch instead.

lasley commented 7 years ago

Perfect, this is exactly what I needed. Thanks @Yajo.

yelizariev commented 4 years ago

A question about Apache license. If I have a tool, that uses Doodba, can I use name Doodba in a slogan that describes it? Something like "Doodba-based CI tool" ?

yajo commented 4 years ago

I don't have a problem on that. What do you think @pedrobaeza?

pedrobaeza commented 4 years ago

Not a problem on my side. The question is if the chosen license forbids it (it was not our intention). I don't think so. Any way, if you are indeed doing a CI tool, do you know https://github.com/Tecnativa/doodba-qa/?

yelizariev commented 4 years ago

Thanks for the answers.

About the tool. Doodba-qa is a QA tool for doodba-based projects, while I'm working on a QA tool based on doodba :smile: . It's basically a replacement for MQT with GitHub actions instead of Travis.

pedrobaeza commented 4 years ago

Oh, that can be great and maybe we can replace MQT in OCA by this! Let us know.

yajo commented 4 years ago

If you ever get to propose replacing MQT for a doodba-based tool...

:grin: :smile:

Although it'd be awesome.