OpenERP Webclient proprietär

Bernhard Reiter reiter at
Wed Sep 22 15:12:11 UTC 2010

Am Samstag, 11. September 2010 09:57:51 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> Il giorno mer, 08/09/2010 alle 09.50 +0200, Matthias Kirschner ha
> scritto:
> > The company 2007-TODAY Tiny ERP Pvt Ltd is also experimenting:
> >
> >   If you need commercial licence to remove this kind of restriction
> > please contact us.
> >
> > This would mean that they think that you are not allowed to use their
> > software commercially, but that you have to buy another license.
> I don't agree with your interpretation :)
> I think this sentence is straightforward: you need a commercial license
> just if you want to remove links and logos. That is: you can use it
> commercially without buying a commercial license... but you must keep
> their branding stuff.

What makes it unfree is not that attribution is required, but that the
format and place of attribution is fixed. So you cannot adapt the software
to all uses, which violates the second freedom.

> This is, for example, a typical strategy of many free (as in beer) photo
> galleries for websites.

Yes, the admit that there is value in removing the logos and branding (not 
saying anything about the attribution) and that you do not have the liberty 
to do so. Another sign that it is clearly unfree.

> > This might be influences by the amount and places of Open ERP's "links"
> > and "logos", but the startup page is definetely bothering.
> This restriction is a nuisance..

It is more than that. A message in the about dialog, the splash screen and all 
related documentation (if there is any of this) is a nuisance, but it does 
not obstruct the ability to adapt the software to your needs.
If you are using the software embedded in your washing machine or your mobile 
phone, large logos and forced links on the front and main pages will obstruct 
the usability and even make it completely unusable in extreme cases.

> Also, the core software (server and GTK client) is licensed under GPL v.
> 3.

True. This is why the message was specifically about the web client
not about the rest. 

> The web client is nice and sexy but it's not essential. 

It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary business 
people do it, like SugarCRM.

> > Debian is packaging it also under non-free, see
> >;a=blob;f
> >=debian/control;hb=HEAD
> >
> > Does anyone know more about it? Can someone help to distribute this to
> > more people. For example the Wikipedia article
> > says it is Free Software.
> I've read right now the wikipedia page (which has not been edited in the
> last days, except for the last version of the software) and I think
> there is all the information needed, especially here:
> What do you think is missing?

It is not clear about that the web client, as opposed to the other two 
components is unfree. (Aka _not_ Open Source (Free Software)).


FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany                            (
Your donation makes our work possible:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list