Questions about the future of ofbiz

[cjhowe]

With the exception of...
InventoryStatusGlAccountType
PartySupplementalData
SalesTeamRoleSecurity
ViewPreference
ViewPrefType
ViewPrefValueType
DataImportCustomer
DataImportOrderHeader
DataImportOrderItem
DataImportProduct
DataImportInventory

AFAIK, it's the other way around.  Entities from ofbiz are in opentaps
+ CRM distribution.  The unmodified portions of OpenSourceStrategies
distribution is Apache licensed.  However, that distinction is of
little value as the unmodified portions are obviously available from
the Apache Ofbiz distribution without question under Apache license.



--- BJ Freeman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> which brings up a point, of why entities from finical and crmsfa are
> in
> ofbiz distribution.
> does this mean the entities that are in both ofbiz and the open
> strategies are under the apache license.
>
>
> David E. Jones sent the following on 4/6/2007 8:07 PM:
> >
> > The trick is that the GPL is not clear on whether or not making an
> > application available over the internet constitutes distribution...
> >
> > Of course, the OSS/opentaps financials and crmsfa modules are not
> GPL
> > licensed, they are HPL licensed which explicitly states that making
> them
> > available over the internet DOES constitute distribution. This gets
> to
> > be a pain because the configurations and everything are HPL
> licensed, so
> > if you don't want to reveal your business setup, you should buy a
> license.
> >
> > Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source
> > Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module
> at
> > least under the GPL license because of the history of the early
> > development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the
> HPL
> > license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real
> legal
> > document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> > On Apr 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> >
> >> Scott,
> >>
> >> That license only requires you to deliver your private source
> codes if
> >> you:
> >>
> >> 1. Change original codes licensed under GPL
> >>
> >> 2. Distribute/sell the new package.
> >>
> >> Say you enhance OpenTaps for your own use, and you call the new
> >> package MyOwnApp. If you only ever use MyOwnApp in your own
> computers,
> >> and never distribute/sell MyOwnApp, you will never have to release
> the
> >> source codes in MyOwnApp.
> >>
> >> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong?
> >>
> >> Jonathon
> >>
> >> Scott A wrote:
> >>> I've looked at Opentaps and agree that it would be a good start
> and
> >>> it is in
> >>> fact how I got to ofbiz originally but I would like to see it in
> the
> >>> core of
> >>> ofbiz. As I understand it at the moment, opentaps is distributed
> with
> >>> a totally
> >>> different license and while I don't know all of the legal
> >>> ramifications, I
> >>> am told by the people that I trust most that it would be a
> mistake
> >>> for me to
> >>> start developing industry specific extensions based on that
> license.
> >>> While I am am not opposed to sharing enhancements and giving back
> to the
> >>> community, my industry specific mods are going to be for me only.
> I
> >>> hope you
> >>> understand.
> >>> Walter Vaughan wrote:
> >>>> Scott A wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Like I said, I am a user plain and simple so I can’t get into
> all
> >>>>> of the
> >>>>> technical side of things. All I know is that I would like a CRM
> >>>>> portion
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> ofbiz similar to how Sugar CRM works but with a good and solid
> email
> >>>>> client
> >>>>> built in. I guess it would take someone with the interest and
> >>>>> technical
> >>>>> ability to put the requirements together first.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That said, I can only contribute with my wants and needs and
> some
> >>>>> cash.
> >>>>> I'd
> >>>>> be willing to throw $1000 into the hat to get this type of
> >>>>> functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where do I go from here?
> >>>> Have you looked at the Opentaps CRM-SFA modules for ofBiz?
> >>>> https://demo.opensourcestrategies.com:8445/crmsfa/control/login
> >>>>
> >>>> It's fully integrated with ofBiz and has a Ajax style email
> client.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe what you need is already available. If it's not, I'd like
> to hear
> >>>> what you need that I may not have already considered.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Walter
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Walter Vaughan]

Chris Howe wrote:

This is an entity we had Opensource Strategies write as a POC
> DataImportCustomer

Based up the work here
 > DataImportInventory
 > DataImportProduct

These are things we(*) wrote based upon the POC, but is WIP
> DataImportOrderHeader
> DataImportOrderItem

WIP but 99% complete
* DataImportBox
* DataImportPayment

Just prototyped but on the todo list for next week or two
* DataImportVendor
* DataImportVendorItem

Sometime later this summer all this will be finished, documented, and ready for
use by the community.

(*) Actually David Shere and Eric Schwartz did 99% of the work modifying the POC.

--
Walter

[flj]

Hello.

IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your  
freedom of choice.

Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  
requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  
restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if  
you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to essentially  
the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a product  
based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck, no  
matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz.  
If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source  
additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the  
same way for both of them.

There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution  
based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are  
licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom  
solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to publish  
it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make money  
 from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.

The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available in  
opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At  
least that's my understanding.

Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy,  
correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.

br,

--
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  
> originally. I
> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do  
> whatever
> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the  
> future
> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that  
> the
> license was different from what you had thought.
>
> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build  
> the
> extra functionality that I want and need.
>
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer, but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and the Apache license is nothing like any of them.

David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some point.

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:

Hello.

IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your freedom of choice.

Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both of them.

There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make money from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.

The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.

Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.

br,

-- 

Florin Jurcovici

------------------

Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]> wrote:

I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had originally. I

didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do whatever

I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the future

leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's

especially true for speciality operations that need to do much

customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth

more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that the

license was different from what you had thought.

I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build the

extra functionality that I want and need.

[Scott Gray]

Hi Florin

I think you got it mixed up, these are the applicable licenses:
OFBiz - Apache License
opentaps - was GPL, now HPL

Regards
Scott

On 10/04/07, Tim Ruppert <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and
> their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer, but the
> GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions on the HPL),
> the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and the Apache license
> is nothing like any of them.
> David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he can
> swing in and address your particular examples directly at some point.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your
> freedom of choice.
>
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if you
> go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to essentially the
> same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a product based
> on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if
> you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on
> you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz
> - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both of
> them.
>
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to publish it
> as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make money from
> selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
>
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available in
> opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At least
> that's my understanding.
>
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy,
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>
> br,
>
> --
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> originally. I
> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> whatever
> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the
> future
> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out that
> the
> license was different from what you had thought.
>
> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll build
> the
> extra functionality that I want and need.
>
>
>
>
>

[cjhowe]

Hi Florin,

I think the following link shows clearly how you can use various open
source licenses.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html

enjoy

--- Florin Jurcovici <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
> your  
> freedom of choice.
>
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter
> if  
> you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
> essentially  
> the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a
> product  
> based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck,
> no  
> matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or
> ofbiz.  
> If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source
>  
> additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it
> the  
> same way for both of them.
>
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
>  
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps
> are  
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your
> custom  
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
> publish  
> it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make
> money  
>  from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
> opentaps.
>
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
> available in  
> opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At
>  
> least that's my understanding.
>
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
> buggy,  
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>
> br,
>
> --
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  
> > originally. I
> > didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
>
> > whatever
> > I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
> the  
> > future
> > leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
> road. It's
> > especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> > customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is
> worth
> > more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
> that  
> > the
> > license was different from what you had thought.
> >
> > I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> build  
> > the
> > extra functionality that I want and need.
> >
> >
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Thanks Chris - this is exactly what I was looking for.

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Chris Howe wrote:

Hi Florin,

I think the following link shows clearly how you can use various open

source licenses.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html

enjoy

--- Florin Jurcovici <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hello.

IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect

your  

freedom of choice.

Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only  

requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any  

restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter

if  

you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to

essentially  

the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and market a

product  

based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source, you're stuck,

no  

matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on opentaps or

ofbiz.  

If later on you decide to publish your custom solution as open-source

additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're essentially going to do it

the  

same way for both of them.

There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution

based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps

are  

licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your

custom  

solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to

publish  

it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make

money  

 from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or

opentaps.

The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality

available in  

opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At

least that's my understanding.

Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is

buggy,  

correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.

br,

-- 

Florin Jurcovici

------------------

Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]>

wrote:

I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had  

originally. I

didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do 

whatever

I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where

the  

future

leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the

road. It's

especially true for speciality operations that need to do much

customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is

worth

more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out

that  

the

license was different from what you had thought.

I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll

build  

the

extra functionality that I want and need.

[Jacopo Cappellato]

Hi Florin,

OFBiz is licensed under the ASL2.0 (Apache Software License 2.0) and
*NOT* under the GPL license.
This is *really* important and we should not make confusion on this.

Jacopo



Florin Jurcovici wrote:

> Hello.
>
> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect your
> freedom of choice.
>
> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter if
> you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
> essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and
> market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it closed-source,
> you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom, marketable solution on
> opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to publish your custom
> solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're
> essentially going to do it the same way for both of them.
>
> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom solution
> based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps are
> licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your custom
> solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
> publish it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could make
> money from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
> opentaps.
>
> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality available
> in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort, IMO. At
> least that's my understanding.
>
> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is buggy,
> correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>
> br,
>
> --Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
>> originally. I
>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
>> whatever
>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where the
>> future
>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the road. It's
>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is worth
>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
>> that the
>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>
>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
>> build the
>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>
>>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Apache is the word here !

Jacques

> Hi Florin,
>
> OFBiz is licensed under the ASL2.0 (Apache Software License 2.0) and
> *NOT* under the GPL license.
> This is *really* important and we should not make confusion on this.
>
> Jacopo
>
>
>
> Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect

your
> > freedom of choice.
> >
> > Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> > requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> > restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no matter
if
> > you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are bound to
> > essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to develop and
> > market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep it
closed-source,
> > you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom, marketable
solution on
> > opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to publish your custom
> > solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or opentaps - you're
> > essentially going to do it the same way for both of them.
> >
> > There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
solution
> > based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core nor opentaps
are
> > licensed under its terms. As such, you have to either keep your
custom
> > solution closed source and use it only internally, or you have to
> > publish it as open source. So essentially there is no way you could
make
> > money from selling licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or
> > opentaps.
> >
> > The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
available
> > in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of effort,
IMO. At
> > least that's my understanding.
> >
> > Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
buggy,
> > correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> >
> > br,
> >
> > --Florin Jurcovici
> > ------------------
> > Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A <[hidden email]>
wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> >> originally. I
> >> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> >> whatever
> >> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
the
> >> future
> >> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
road. It's
> >> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> >> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software is
worth

> >> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find out
> >> that the
> >> license was different from what you had thought.
> >>
> >> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> >> build the
> >> extra functionality that I want and need.
> >>
> >>
>

[flj]

Hello.

To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various  
licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from  
each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these  
licensing issues.)

HPL/GPL: I don't see anything different in the spirit of the two licenses.  
HPL seems to me more restrictive in that it specifies details which the  
GPL leaves open to interpretation, but I could not find any essential  
difference between the two. Both licenses require you to provide source  
code to any binary you may distribute, and not charge any money for either  
the binary or the source code, if you built your binary on top of or as an  
extension of some GPL/HPL-ed app. They do not require you to share  
whatever modifications you make to an app with the rest of the world, they  
do however require that if you do so, it should happen without any  
licensing fees and with anybody interested in the whole world. They both  
delimit in pretty much the same way what may and may not be considered  
derived work.

Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to  
commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces  
exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts of  
an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses code  
in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz with a  
module which not only provides additional financial services but also  
changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

Essentially, I see no significant difference between the spirit of the  
Apache license and GPL. I'd happily listen to somebody trying to explain  
this difference. Seemingly, the Apache ppl think the same way - quoting  
 from their FAQ:

        Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?

                It is the unofficial position of The Apache Software Foundation
                that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL. However, the
                Free Software Foundation holds a different position, although we
                have not been able to get them to give us categorical answers to
                our queries asking for details on just what aspects they consider
                incompatible.

                Whether to mix software covered under these two different licenses
                must be a determination made by those attempting such a synthesis.

It may be that the GPL tries to enforce open-source-ness in a more  
aggressive way than the Apache license, in that GPL forces you to share,  
whereas Apache allows you to share (I found this opinion on the web, but  
could not find an arugment for it in the text of the two licenses). But I  
think a lawyer is needed to really point out the differences so that a  
non-lawyer may understand them. But both of them are pretty much the same  
to me if you _don't_ want to share.

Digging deeper into the problem, I found the following on a wiki page  
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_License - a search on the  
FSF's site found it there too) - what the FSF says about Apache 2.0:

                This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
                The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a
                specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent
                termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think
                those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
                nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)

IMO, this difference is not essential for what this discussion is about.

LGPL: even this license is pretty restrictive in closing source code.  
However, you can, under this license, use an open-source library to build  
your own commercial solution, and keep your solution closed source. You  
still have to provide notice that you used the library, and not charge  
license fees for the library itself.

What I understand that Scott's problem is, is that he expects (or at least  
doesn't want to disregard the possibility) that he'll come to a point  
where his custom, industry-specific solution built on top of ofbiz (or  
opentaps) is so smart that he may decide to license it commercially. IMO,  
neither building such a solution based on opentaps, licensed under the  
HPL, nor on ofbiz core, licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, will allow  
him to do this. So I see no point in him duplicating the effort which has  
already gone into the opentaps modules he considers rewriting. On the  
other hand, if he considers writing modules for ofbiz/opentaps, and  
providing a solution where opentaps/ofbiz are unmodified, and only  
extended by his modules, I see no point in restricting himself to one or  
the other solution: neither HPL nor Apache 2.0 prohibit commercially  
licensing pluggable components for unmodified open-source apps.

Our ("our" = the company I'm working for) intention is to provide  
solutions to our customers based on ofbiz/opentaps. We don't want to  
settle on either opentaps or ofbiz, but be flexible, and choose the one  
which is appropriate for the customers' needs, on a case-by-case basis. So  
we are clearly interested in licensing issues which are different between  
the two.

br,

--
Florin Jurcovici
------------------
Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:12:07 +0300, Tim Ruppert  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses and
> their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer,
> but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions
> on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all and
> the Apache license is nothing like any of them.
>
> David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe he
> can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some
> point.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
>> your freedom of choice.
>>
>> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
>> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
>> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no
>> matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are
>> bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to
>> develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep
>> it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom,
>> marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to
>> publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or
>> opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both
>> of them.
>>
>> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
>> solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core
>> nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to
>> either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only
>> internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So
>> essentially there is no way you could make money from selling
>> licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
>>
>> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
>> available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of
>> effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.
>>
>> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
>> buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
>>
>> br,
>>
>> --
>> Florin Jurcovici
>> ------------------
>> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
>>> originally. I
>>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
>>> whatever
>>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
>>> the future
>>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
>>> road. It's
>>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
>>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software
>>> is worth
>>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find
>>> out that the
>>> license was different from what you had thought.
>>>
>>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
>>> build the
>>> extra functionality that I want and need.
>>>
>>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

Florin,

IANAL, but here is what I know so far

> Hello.
>
> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
various
> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand
from
> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> licensing issues.)

You got it wrong at least for ASL2 and for ASL2 vs GPL. You should at
least read the link Chris posted :

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/licenses_summary.html

> HPL/GPL: I don't see anything different in the spirit of the two
licenses.
> HPL seems to me more restrictive in that it specifies details which
the
> GPL leaves open to interpretation, but I could not find any essential
> difference between the two. Both licenses require you to provide
source
> code to any binary you may distribute, and not charge any money for
either
> the binary or the source code, if you built your binary on top of or
as an
> extension of some GPL/HPL-ed app. They do not require you to share
> whatever modifications you make to an app with the rest of the world,
they
> do however require that if you do so, it should happen without any
> licensing fees and with anybody interested in the whole world. They
both
> delimit in pretty much the same way what may and may not be considered
> derived work.

I have no comment here (did not even read all your writing) : for me
it's simple HPL is more constrained and notably more clear than GPL on
usage on web

> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
of
> an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
code
> in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz with a
> module which not only provides additional financial services but also
> changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

AFAIK there are no such constraints when commercialising with ASL2. ASL2
have only some restriction when it comes to commercialise. You can't
withdraw the Apache name.
And if you redistribute your code modified from an Apache project you
must show the ASL2 header in each files (except very simple files
without any "intelligence"). You must also keep the licences related
files (LICENCE, NOTICE) in your distribution.
>
> Essentially, I see no significant difference between the spirit of the
> Apache license and GPL. I'd happily listen to somebody trying to
explain
> this difference. Seemingly, the Apache ppl think the same way -
quoting
>  from their FAQ:
>
> Is the Apache license compatible with the GPL (GNU Public License)?

NO ! That's why we had to withdraw GPL libraries used in OFBiz before
Apache era.You can use them if you want (refer to 1st column in Chris
Howe link) but we can't distribute them within OFBiz.

> It is the unofficial position of The Apache Software Foundation
> that the Apache license is compatible with the GPL. However, the
> Free Software Foundation holds a different position, although we
> have not been able to get them to give us categorical answers to
> our queries asking for details on just what aspects they consider
> incompatible.
>
> Whether to mix software covered under these two different licenses
> must be a determination made by those attempting such a synthesis.
>
> It may be that the GPL tries to enforce open-source-ness in a more
> aggressive way than the Apache license, in that GPL forces you to

share,
> whereas Apache allows you to share (I found this opinion on the web,
but
> could not find an arugment for it in the text of the two licenses).
But I
> think a lawyer is needed to really point out the differences so that a
> non-lawyer may understand them. But both of them are pretty much the
same
> to me if you _don't_ want to share.

No, on a commercial POV with Apache you are allowed to do so, not with
GPL

> Digging deeper into the problem, I found the following on a wiki page
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Software_License - a search on
the

> FSF's site found it there too) - what the FSF says about Apache 2.0:
>
> This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
> The Apache License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a
> specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent
> termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think
> those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
> nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
>
> IMO, this difference is not essential for what this discussion is

about.
>
> LGPL: even this license is pretty restrictive in closing source code.
> However, you can, under this license, use an open-source library to
build
> your own commercial solution, and keep your solution closed source.
You
> still have to provide notice that you used the library, and not charge
> license fees for the library itself.
>
> What I understand that Scott's problem is, is that he expects (or at
least
> doesn't want to disregard the possibility) that he'll come to a point
> where his custom, industry-specific solution built on top of ofbiz (or
> opentaps) is so smart that he may decide to license it commercially.
IMO,
> neither building such a solution based on opentaps, licensed under the
> HPL, nor on ofbiz core, licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, will
allow
> him to do this. So I see no point in him duplicating the effort which
has
> already gone into the opentaps modules he considers rewriting. On the
> other hand, if he considers writing modules for ofbiz/opentaps, and
> providing a solution where opentaps/ofbiz are unmodified, and only
> extended by his modules, I see no point in restricting himself to one
or
> the other solution: neither HPL nor Apache 2.0 prohibit commercially
> licensing pluggable components for unmodified open-source apps.

No problem with ASL2, different for LGPL and even more for GPL. Consider
just a thing : Opentaps is build on OFBiz, you see ?

>
> Our ("our" = the company I'm working for) intention is to provide
> solutions to our customers based on ofbiz/opentaps. We don't want to
> settle on either opentaps or ofbiz, but be flexible, and choose the
one
> which is appropriate for the customers' needs, on a case-by-case
basis. So
> we are clearly interested in licensing issues which are different
between
> the two.

From a commercial POV , for me ASL2 is less restrictive thant LGPL with
is less restrictive than GPL with in turn is less restrictive than HPL.

HTH

To everybody : Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Jacques

> br,
>
> --
> Florin Jurcovici
> ------------------
> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:12:07 +0300, Tim Ruppert
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Florin, I think that your understanding of the different licenses

and
> > their restrictions are slightly off.  I certainly am not a lawyer,
> > but the GPL is not the same as the HPL (there are added restrictions
> > on the HPL), the LGPL doesn't jibe with the Apache license at all
and
> > the Apache license is nothing like any of them.
> >
> > David's explanations have always made the most sense to me - maybe
he

> > can swing in and address your particular examples directly at some
> > point.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tim
> > --
> > Tim Ruppert
> > HotWax Media
> > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
> >
> > o:801.649.6594
> > f:801.649.6595
> >
> >
> > On Apr 10, 2007, at 1:05 AM, Florin Jurcovici wrote:
> >
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> IMO that's not necessarily the best wasy to go - although I respect
> >> your freedom of choice.
> >>
> >> Why do I thik otherwise? Since the HPL is a modified GPL that only
> >> requires openness more precisely than the GPL - I could not see any
> >> restriction in a spirit different than that of the GPL. So no
> >> matter if you go with ofbiz core or with opentaps, IMO you are
> >> bound to essentially the same contract. If you later on decide to
> >> develop and market a product based on ofbiz or opentaps, and keep
> >> it closed-source, you're stuck, no matter if you built your custom,
> >> marketable solution on opentaps or ofbiz. If later on you decide to
> >> publish your custom solution as open-source additions to ofbiz - or
> >> opentaps - you're essentially going to do it the same way for both
> >> of them.
> >>
> >> There is another license, which allows you to build a custom
> >> solution based on open source: LGPL. However, neither ofbiz core
> >> nor opentaps are licensed under its terms. As such, you have to
> >> either keep your custom solution closed source and use it only
> >> internally, or you have to publish it as open source. So
> >> essentially there is no way you could make money from selling
> >> licenses of stuff built on top of either ofbiz or opentaps.
> >>
> >> The only thing you' achieve by duplicating the functionality
> >> available in opentaps and not available in ofbiz is duplication of
> >> effort, IMO. At least that's my understanding.
> >>
> >> Please, anybody, if my understanding of the licensing problems is
> >> buggy, correct me. The licensing issues are important for me too.
> >>
> >> br,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Florin Jurcovici
> >> ------------------
> >> Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
> >>
> >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 17:53:28 +0300, Scott A
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I guess this thread really illustrates the confusion that I had
> >>> originally. I
> >>> didnt want to start any problems but I just want the ability to do
> >>> whatever
> >>> I want with the software that I help to develop. Who knows where
> >>> the future
> >>> leads and what we may or may not do with the software down the
> >>> road. It's
> >>> especially true for speciality operations that need to do much
> >>> customization. You might find in 5 years time that your software
> >>> is worth
> >>> more than your product... That would be a real bad time to find
> >>> out that the
> >>> license was different from what you had thought.
> >>>
> >>> I'm just going to stick with the core of ofbiz and over time I'll
> >>> build the
> >>> extra functionality that I want and need.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
>

[Christian Geisert]

Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> Hello.
>
> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> licensing issues.)

[..]

> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
wrong, see http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
for details.
Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
and give an attribution notice.
Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)

--
Christian

[Scott.]

Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is this a correct assumption?

Christian Geisert wrote

Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> Hello.
>
> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> licensing issues.)

[..]

> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
wrong, see http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
for details.
Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
and give an attribution notice.
Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)

--
Christian

[Jacques Le Roux]

> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for
a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand
I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a
HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?

Yes, to do so in case of Opentaps, if you don't want to expose your own
code, you have to buy a commercial lience from OpenSource Strategy.

Jacques

>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
> >
> > Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the
various
> >> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand
from
> >> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
> >> licensing issues.)
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
> >> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
> >> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces
parts
> >> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which
uses
> >> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing
ofbiz
> >> with a module which not only provides additional financial services
but
> >> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
> >
> > I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
> > wrong, see
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
> > for details.
> > Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is
based
> > on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required
to
> > publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the
license

> > and give an attribution notice.
> > Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
> >
> > --
> > Christian
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9920685
> Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Tim Ruppert]

That is undoubtedly correct Scott. 

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Apr 10, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Scott A wrote:

Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a

franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes

website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can

do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is

this a correct assumption?

Christian Geisert wrote:

Florin Jurcovici schrieb:

Hello.

To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various

licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from

each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these

licensing issues.)

[..]

Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to

commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces

exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts

of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses

code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz

with a module which not only provides additional financial services but

also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.

I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly

wrong, see

http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN

for details.

Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based

on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to

publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license

and give an attribution notice.

Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)

-- 

Christian

-- 

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Questions-about-the-future-of-ofbiz-tf3533557.html#a9920685

Sent from the OFBiz - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

[Christian Geisert]

Scott A schrieb:
> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?

IANAL and I've never heard of the HPL but the GPL doesn't forbid selling
software. However, you are required to license your modified software
under the GPL.

--
Christian

[Si Chen-2]

This is not true.

The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of files
from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a subset of the
files from that repository would be released under the GPL after all
copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source Strategies, Inc.)  It
did not commit us to creating a new repository or module, undertaking
any further enhancement to those files, or releasing future versions of
those files.  Those files were already released under the GPL, and we
have satisfied all the terms of the agreement.


David E. Jones wrote:

>
> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source
> Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at
> least under the GPL license because of the history of the early
> development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL
> license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal
> document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.
>
> -David
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Si, I don't think that anyone wants to get into a pissing contest about this or anything else - especially judging by the way David approached it in the thread you referenced.

Personally, I see no good in getting down to the bottom of this particular issue at this time - just so that people can be validated on the mailing list.  If you want to go down that road - please let us know and we'll be happy to oblige.  

Otherwise, let's just look at the facts related to the licenses (GPL vs HPL vs the Apache license), make sure that people are properly informed and continue to build fantastic software - whether it is under the OFBiz trunk or under Opentaps.

Cheers,

Tim

--

Tim Ruppert

HotWax Media

http://www.hotwaxmedia.com

o:801.649.6594

f:801.649.6595

On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Si Chen wrote:

This is not true. 

The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of files from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a subset of the files from that repository would be released under the GPL after all copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source Strategies, Inc.)  It did not commit us to creating a new repository or module, undertaking any further enhancement to those files, or releasing future versions of those files.  Those files were already released under the GPL, and we have satisfied all the terms of the agreement. 

David E. Jones wrote:

Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials module at least under the GPL license because of the history of the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not so encumbered.

-David

[David E Jones]

Si,

I guess my reply off-line was not sufficient or you didn't want to  
discuss it there. That's fine, I prefer a public forum anyway.

Comments in-line:

On Apr 23, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Si Chen wrote:

> This is not true.
> The agreement in question covered the disposition of a list of  
> files from the old accountingext repository.  It stated that a  
> subset of the files from that repository would be released under  
> the GPL after all copyright had been transferred to us (Open Source  
> Strategies, Inc.)

The text is actually fairly small and simple: "6. OSSI agrees to  
release the Exhibit B Files under the GNU General Public License  
(GPL) in addition to any other commercial software licenses under  
which it may intend to release them."

> It did not commit us to creating a new repository or module,

Correct.

> undertaking any further enhancement to those files,

Yep.

> or releasing future versions of those files.

True as well.

> Those files were already released under the GPL, and we have  
> satisfied all the terms of the agreement.

You're right the files were released under the GPL licensed. The  
original release of those is fine.

The tricky part is when the license changed, which the agreement had  
no provision for, so it would be done under the terms of the GPL.  
That code was GPL licensed and the GPL requires changes and  
modifications to be licensed under the GPL, or a "compatible"  
license. There is a lot of debate, because of this requirement, about  
which licenses are GPL-compatible (ie which ones you can use for your  
changes to GPL code in order to avoid licensing them under the GPL).

Let's say HPL was GPL-compatible (I don't know if this is the case or  
not). That would mean that any additions or changes to the original  
files could be HPL licensed, but the contents of the original files  
would still need to be GPL licensed.

That said, I really don't care so much about this issue. Unless  
something changes we (Undersun) are not going to push this issue as  
there is no benefit that we can see to doing so.

In fact, I'm not even sure what the problem or concern is, and why we  
are even having this discussion. Still, I hope this clarifies my  
thought on it for anyone reading in who might be concerned about it.

Also, in general, this has NOTHING to do with OFBiz. It is 100% about  
a code base that is not at all part of OFBiz. So, I also apologize to  
those who are reading this mailing list because they are interested  
in OFBiz itself.

-David

> David E. Jones wrote:
>>
>> Actually it's more complicated than that... Technically Open  
>> Source Strategies has a signed contract to license the financials  
>> module at least under the GPL license because of the history of  
>> the early development of it, so they shouldn't be distributing it  
>> under the HPL license. We haven't pushed them on that, but that is  
>> in a real legal document. The crmsfa one on the other hand is not  
>> so encumbered.
>>
>> -David
>>

[Si Chen-2]

Since this turned into a discussion about opentaps, I'd like to explain
the opentaps licensing and business model a little better, for the
benefit of everybody in the OFBIZ community.

The opentaps licensing model is a way we thought of to increase the
total body of openly available software, hopefully to the benefit of
everybody.  Our goal is not to exclude anybody, whether you are a user,
a service provider, or a vertical market ISV, from using our software.  
Rather, it is to create a fair  mechanism for encouraging contributions
back to the open source community and supporting open source
development.  (It is actually a more sophisticated form of some early
cost-sharing models we tried two years ago but simply didn't work.)

If you are thinking of creating a commercial product which falls out of
the scope of our open source license, we have a couple of options:

(a) We offer a commercial license which is a small fraction of the cost
for you to create these applications yourself or hiring a consultant to
do it for you.  With this license, you do not have any obligations to
publish your proprietary code.  All our commercial licensing revenues,
in turn, help support ongoing development and support for open source
software, to the benefit of everybody.

(b) Alternatively, you could contribute features back to us in exchange
for commercial licenses, and we offer very generous terms of exchange
which will give you a good return on your investment in those features
and save you from "reinventing the wheel" first.  In effect, you'll be
joining us in the development of opentaps.

Of course, please do not mistake any of this for trying to dissuade
anybody from contributing back to OFBIZ.  I've spent three plus years
trying to get more contributions to OFBIZ, and, obviously, the better
OFBIZ is, the better off we are.  However, if you want to use opentaps
but don't want to create an open source product based on it yourself, I
do not want you to feel that we are trying to exclude you either.  

Si Chen

Scott A wrote:

> Here is a question. If I decide to modify my business model and go for a
> franchise type business where I sell the entire package which includes
> website, admin (ofbiz) and product to a company from what I understand I can
> do so freely with the Apache's License but I could not do it with a HPL. Is
> this a correct assumption?
>
>
>
>
> Christian Geisert wrote:
>  
>> Florin Jurcovici schrieb:
>>    
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> To see if I really got it wrong, I did a bit of research on the various
>>> licenses. I think it is useful to restate briefly what I understand from
>>> each license. (I surely would like to see a lawyer comment on these
>>> licensing issues.)
>>>      
>> [..]
>>
>>    
>>> Apache license: as far as I can understand it, it allows you to
>>> commercially license only stuff which is only coupled on interfaces
>>> exposed by an app, such as plugins, but not stuff which replaces parts
>>> of an app and/or implements various things differently, and which uses
>>> code in the app to build and run - like for instance licensing ofbiz
>>> with a module which not only provides additional financial services but
>>> also changes whatever there already is in ofbiz.
>>>      
>> I don't know where you got this information from but it is clearly
>> wrong, see
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#WhatDoesItMEAN
>> for details.
>> Short: You are allowed to distribute/sell your software which is based
>> on code licensed under the Apache License and you are not required to
>> publish your modified code. All you need to do is to include the license
>> and give an attribution notice.
>> Big difference to the GPL (whatever version)
>>
>> --
>> Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>
>