Archives
Contributors
-
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Sorry on that point. Of course, whatever the original author decides. There is only 3 realistic choices anyway.For me it is nearly always AGPL. I was not advocating OCA relicense to AGPL by any stretch, just encouraging its use and not to throw it away over some vendor FUD.Le dim. 14 sept. 2025, 08:37, Joël Grand-Guillaume <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :Dear community,I strongly agree with Maxine here. The OCA accept any OSI compliant licences and since the begining it has always left the choice to the contributors among available ones.I invite you to read our FAQ under chapter licences & CLA: https://odoo-community.org/resources/faqIt explains what's needed. If you feel there is something not clear enough or missing, please write your proposal to: support AT odoo-community.orgLooking forward to meeting you in person at the OCA days, a good place to discuss it if you feel the need for it.Best regards,JoëlLe sam. 13 sept. 2025, 22:21, Maxime Chambreuil <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :Hello,
Since everybody is giving its opinion, here is mine.
I think the license the contributor decides to put in the modules he is contributing to the OCA is his choice and should not be judged. We are a community, not a team or company. We don't necessarily share the same objectives and we don't necessarily aim for the same impact or result when contributing.
The only thing the OCA should do on this topic is educate so contributors make the right choice reflecting their values in complete awareness of the pros and cons. A page or blog post on the oca website comparing the different licenses, with pros and cons, with correct/incorrect legal/illegal behavior.
My 2 cents on the license. More to come on the contributions in the other thread later.
Cheers--Maxime ChambreuilDesde mi móvil
From: Raphaël Valyi <notifications@odoo-community.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:36:58 AM
To: Contributors <contributors@odoo-community.org>
Subject: Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same serverEventually we could create a simple OCA tutorial that would give an example use case where a company needs customizations that depend both on OCA AGPL and LGPL modules and need to protect some IP. We could give a few guidelines how to split the codebase between AGPL and LGPL derivatives.
Obviously there would always be a grey area where people would carefully craft glue modules to action OCA AGPL code without explicitly depending on it.
But eventually we could still cover the most obvious cases. This could help to:
- limit the FUD about AGPL- incentivate more actors to publish what should be published
Would it be risky for the OCA to publish such guidelines if a court finally interpret things differently? Should we officially cover the EE case as well?
Finally about AGPL enforcement in general: one thing is the AGPL be violated by some final users. Just like piracy in general, it's hard to avoid indeed.
But at least the AGPL should ideally protect us against massive violation by big SaaS players (because of the legal risks). Without such protection, a big actor (Odoo SA themselves?) would easily put all OCA modules authors out of business by creating superior private derivatives without any attribution, much like some open source editors complained GAFAM like companies created unfriendly forks of their products.
Notice however that if the OCA starts selling double license exceptions, we will not even be sure we could name and shame or even sue some company who is obviously extending an OCA module without publishing it back. So I think it would just incentivate piracy, not a net positive for me...
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 8:47 AM Frederik Kramer <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hi Greame, there is amble debate on when an AGPL licenced software is actually made publicly available. To cases where it is pretty clear (to me and most people that i know do academic research on the matter): 1.) Your company is actually consisting of more then one legal entities collaborating on the same system (e.g. holding structure) 2.) If you use E-Commerce ar any means of direct user acces (like portal functions) 3.) If you let externals to your company access to the software (even with a VPN), e.g. freelancer use cases, suppliers, customers Furthermore as soon as you modify anything you implicitely agree to the license liabilities See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1hh25a0/agpl_for_software_hosted_internally/ for a little bit of debate on the matter Best Frederik Am 13.09.25 um 13:02 schrieb Graeme Gellatly: > > The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate > the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there > is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. > Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided. -- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Graeme Gellatly - 11:06 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
I have zero time for what academics think, honestly. As for reddit, omg. That whole thread was basically the 2009 Microsoft FUD parroted word for word with a bit of Oracle post Sun acquisition thrown in.Court cases and precedent are what matter. Public is a fairly precise definition in law and the MS interpretation just defies belief.I am 100% comfortable with where I sit, I know everybody disagrees with me here, and I am fine with it.Le sam. 13 sept. 2025, 23:47, Frederik Kramer <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :
Hi Greame, there is amble debate on when an AGPL licenced software is actually made publicly available. To cases where it is pretty clear (to me and most people that i know do academic research on the matter): 1.) Your company is actually consisting of more then one legal entities collaborating on the same system (e.g. holding structure) 2.) If you use E-Commerce ar any means of direct user acces (like portal functions) 3.) If you let externals to your company access to the software (even with a VPN), e.g. freelancer use cases, suppliers, customers Furthermore as soon as you modify anything you implicitely agree to the license liabilities See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1hh25a0/agpl_for_software_hosted_internally/ for a little bit of debate on the matter Best Frederik Am 13.09.25 um 13:02 schrieb Graeme Gellatly: > > The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate > the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there > is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. > Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided. -- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Graeme Gellatly - 11:01 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Dear community,I strongly agree with Maxine here. The OCA accept any OSI compliant licences and since the begining it has always left the choice to the contributors among available ones.I invite you to read our FAQ under chapter licences & CLA: https://odoo-community.org/resources/faqIt explains what's needed. If you feel there is something not clear enough or missing, please write your proposal to: support AT odoo-community.orgLooking forward to meeting you in person at the OCA days, a good place to discuss it if you feel the need for it.Best regards,JoëlLe sam. 13 sept. 2025, 22:21, Maxime Chambreuil <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit :Hello,
Since everybody is giving its opinion, here is mine.
I think the license the contributor decides to put in the modules he is contributing to the OCA is his choice and should not be judged. We are a community, not a team or company. We don't necessarily share the same objectives and we don't necessarily aim for the same impact or result when contributing.
The only thing the OCA should do on this topic is educate so contributors make the right choice reflecting their values in complete awareness of the pros and cons. A page or blog post on the oca website comparing the different licenses, with pros and cons, with correct/incorrect legal/illegal behavior.
My 2 cents on the license. More to come on the contributions in the other thread later.
Cheers--Maxime ChambreuilDesde mi móvil
From: Raphaël Valyi <notifications@odoo-community.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:36:58 AM
To: Contributors <contributors@odoo-community.org>
Subject: Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same serverEventually we could create a simple OCA tutorial that would give an example use case where a company needs customizations that depend both on OCA AGPL and LGPL modules and need to protect some IP. We could give a few guidelines how to split the codebase between AGPL and LGPL derivatives.
Obviously there would always be a grey area where people would carefully craft glue modules to action OCA AGPL code without explicitly depending on it.
But eventually we could still cover the most obvious cases. This could help to:
- limit the FUD about AGPL- incentivate more actors to publish what should be published
Would it be risky for the OCA to publish such guidelines if a court finally interpret things differently? Should we officially cover the EE case as well?
Finally about AGPL enforcement in general: one thing is the AGPL be violated by some final users. Just like piracy in general, it's hard to avoid indeed.
But at least the AGPL should ideally protect us against massive violation by big SaaS players (because of the legal risks). Without such protection, a big actor (Odoo SA themselves?) would easily put all OCA modules authors out of business by creating superior private derivatives without any attribution, much like some open source editors complained GAFAM like companies created unfriendly forks of their products.
Notice however that if the OCA starts selling double license exceptions, we will not even be sure we could name and shame or even sue some company who is obviously extending an OCA module without publishing it back. So I think it would just incentivate piracy, not a net positive for me...
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 8:47 AM Frederik Kramer <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hi Greame, there is amble debate on when an AGPL licenced software is actually made publicly available. To cases where it is pretty clear (to me and most people that i know do academic research on the matter): 1.) Your company is actually consisting of more then one legal entities collaborating on the same system (e.g. holding structure) 2.) If you use E-Commerce ar any means of direct user acces (like portal functions) 3.) If you let externals to your company access to the software (even with a VPN), e.g. freelancer use cases, suppliers, customers Furthermore as soon as you modify anything you implicitely agree to the license liabilities See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1hh25a0/agpl_for_software_hosted_internally/ for a little bit of debate on the matter Best Frederik Am 13.09.25 um 13:02 schrieb Graeme Gellatly: > > The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate > the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there > is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. > Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided. -- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Joël Grand Guillaume - 10:36 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Hello,
Since everybody is giving its opinion, here is mine.
I think the license the contributor decides to put in the modules he is contributing to the OCA is his choice and should not be judged. We are a community, not a team or company. We don't necessarily share the same objectives and we don't necessarily aim for the same impact or result when contributing.
The only thing the OCA should do on this topic is educate so contributors make the right choice reflecting their values in complete awareness of the pros and cons. A page or blog post on the oca website comparing the different licenses, with pros and cons, with correct/incorrect legal/illegal behavior.
My 2 cents on the license. More to come on the contributions in the other thread later.
Cheers--Maxime ChambreuilDesde mi móvil
From: Raphaël Valyi <notifications@odoo-community.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:36:58 AM
To: Contributors <contributors@odoo-community.org>
Subject: Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same serverEventually we could create a simple OCA tutorial that would give an example use case where a company needs customizations that depend both on OCA AGPL and LGPL modules and need to protect some IP. We could give a few guidelines how to split the codebase between AGPL and LGPL derivatives.
Obviously there would always be a grey area where people would carefully craft glue modules to action OCA AGPL code without explicitly depending on it.
But eventually we could still cover the most obvious cases. This could help to:
- limit the FUD about AGPL- incentivate more actors to publish what should be published
Would it be risky for the OCA to publish such guidelines if a court finally interpret things differently? Should we officially cover the EE case as well?
Finally about AGPL enforcement in general: one thing is the AGPL be violated by some final users. Just like piracy in general, it's hard to avoid indeed.
But at least the AGPL should ideally protect us against massive violation by big SaaS players (because of the legal risks). Without such protection, a big actor (Odoo SA themselves?) would easily put all OCA modules authors out of business by creating superior private derivatives without any attribution, much like some open source editors complained GAFAM like companies created unfriendly forks of their products.
Notice however that if the OCA starts selling double license exceptions, we will not even be sure we could name and shame or even sue some company who is obviously extending an OCA module without publishing it back. So I think it would just incentivate piracy, not a net positive for me...
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 8:47 AM Frederik Kramer <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Hi Greame, there is amble debate on when an AGPL licenced software is actually made publicly available. To cases where it is pretty clear (to me and most people that i know do academic research on the matter): 1.) Your company is actually consisting of more then one legal entities collaborating on the same system (e.g. holding structure) 2.) If you use E-Commerce ar any means of direct user acces (like portal functions) 3.) If you let externals to your company access to the software (even with a VPN), e.g. freelancer use cases, suppliers, customers Furthermore as soon as you modify anything you implicitely agree to the license liabilities See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1hh25a0/agpl_for_software_hosted_internally/ for a little bit of debate on the matter Best Frederik Am 13.09.25 um 13:02 schrieb Graeme Gellatly: > > The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate > the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there > is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. > Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided. -- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Maxime Chambreuil - 10:21 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Hi Greame, there is amble debate on when an AGPL licenced software is actually made publicly available. To cases where it is pretty clear (to me and most people that i know do academic research on the matter): 1.) Your company is actually consisting of more then one legal entities collaborating on the same system (e.g. holding structure) 2.) If you use E-Commerce ar any means of direct user acces (like portal functions) 3.) If you let externals to your company access to the software (even with a VPN), e.g. freelancer use cases, suppliers, customers Furthermore as soon as you modify anything you implicitely agree to the license liabilities See https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1hh25a0/agpl_for_software_hosted_internally/ for a little bit of debate on the matter Best Frederik Am 13.09.25 um 13:02 schrieb Graeme Gellatly: > > The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate > the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there > is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. > Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided. -- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
by Frederik Kramer - 01:46 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Honestly Tom, it was a hell of a fight 10 years ago and I don't feel like it again. I am quite alone but also certain in this. So this is just my opinion, nearly all here disagree.The simplest way is to just not accept the license and not propagate the AGPL licensed work. As long as you are using it unmodified, there is no requirement to accept. Clause 9 is quite clear. Conveyance/propagation as a combined work is easily avoided.Now where the argument happens is that they say your extension is "based on" therefore it is modifying, but to my mind this is a gross misinterpretation. It "depends on" or "it consumes" is a better way of saying it. "Based on" means something quite different in a copyright context e.g. Based on a True Story. Essentially a fork.On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 8:12 PM Tom Blauwendraat <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:Nicely explained Graeme, makes it all the more clear.
One question though: how do you then see the case of a custom module having to depend on an Enterprise OPL module as well as an OCA AGPL module? What license would that module need to have, and is it legal? (Not talking about redistribution here, just building such a module and installing it on client's system)
13 sep. 2025 00:32:02 Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
For me AGPL is the best license. IMHO it should be the license choice for everything including Odoo CE.
For clients it is the best (despite all the FUD in this email chain). The simple reason is clause 9, no requirement to accept as they are not propagating or modifying. This renders clause 13 moot which is what everyone gets their knickers in a twist about. Way back when in 2015 we talked to a lot of people including the author of AGPL, engaged specialist lawyers etc this was the basis that you see in our current policy. Furthermore, insofar as a partner/developer develops dependent modules, they are now bound to provide their client the source code, even though client is not required to accept licence, developer is. So client is even further protected and avoids lockin.
For (at least open source minded) partners/developers it is the best. You can develop extensions, do modifications and convey them to your client, along with source and yes it is licensed AGPL. But if someone extends your work and puts on App store you have some protections. It allows the software to grow and evolve and encourage contribution. Whats more is you can extend LGPL without fear the LGPL author will take your contributions. OpenOffice vs LibreOffice success is testament to that.
For Odoo it would be best. It would protect them from SaaS startups under clause 13. Now I hear you say, but enterprise is incompatible so it must be LGPL. This is simply not true, insofar you believe that Odoo correctly relicensed and owns copyrights to all the source. All they needed to do was dual license.
So why do we end up with emails like this, Odoo's decision etc. Because SaaS providers, and vendors like Microsoft have done such a good job of spreading FUD, a lot of which is repeated here that everyone is afraid of it, when it should be embraced. Literally the only people that should fear AGPL is unscrupulous SaaS providers and public for sale app developers.
Insofar as clients need protections around "proprietary code" being given to other people, that is a contractual issue between them and their partner. But let's say your client has really bought the FUD, LGPL is still a bad choice because it forces client acceptance, GPL would be better which is basically the AGPL without network clause.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Sure,
If I remember properly, we have 3 repositories that are mainly LGPL: DMS, EDI-Framework and Queue Job
I will take EDI-Framework as a base as it has several modules in the repo. It has 17 modules in 18 and it as been in its repo for 5 versions for a total of 197 PRs. this makes an average of 39 PRs for each version. Also, it has 49 contributors
On the other hand I will use helpdesk as it has a similar number of modules in 18 (17) and it is completly AGPL. It has been there for 9 versions for a total of 686 PRs, that makes an average of 76 PRs for version with a total of 120 contributors
It is true that EDI-Framework has some special cases like the complexity of components and so on, but with similar sizes in number of modules we can see quite a difference in number of contributors and PRs done.
I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation (spurious relationships are one of the first fun lessons in statistics), but in my view, this makes it quite clear that licensing alone is not the decisive factor in how contributors engage with a project.
Kind regards
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:57, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
ok, i obviously didn't recall this fact. In order to make this comparison stable, we should find comparable siblings of those to by any stable internal complexity measure (maybe McCabe or Halstead is enough for now) and than compare the contributions (again by stable measures) over time
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 21:41 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Frederik,
Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
I agree with the idea of experimenting before making real changes, but I think we need to be cautious with the assumption that moving from AGPL to LGPL automatically results in higher adoption and more contributions. We already have a couple of real-world “experiments” inside OCA itself:
- edi-framework
- queue_job
Both were licensed under LGPL rather than AGPL, and yet they did not attract significantly more contributors or maintainers compared to their AGPL counterparts. If anything, the contributor base has remained relatively small and fixed over the years. This suggests that the license alone is not the determining factor for contributions — other aspects like module complexity, required expertise, or the integrators’ business model also play a huge role.
So the licensing impact turns out to be limited (as our current examples suggest).
For me, it would be more relevant to study why communities like "Spanish Odoo Association" are able to attract so many supporters. They have a similar message, but they have a different strategy that allows to engage most of EE companies. Maybe these people are not making PRs, but at least they make a monetary effort that helps contributors.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:22, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Raphael,
as always very detailed and very insightful thoughts. Honestly, i can't add much value here than just saying you are right with all you said in my opinion. The 20/80 relation for LGPL/AGPL sounds quite reasonable (even if Pareto edges almost always apply).
I'll take the fear / discomfort of Pedro (and Enric) very reasonable, so instead of doing to much to fast, I would suggest to start with a controlled experiment (that even Pedro and Enric would be willing to agree to).
The experiment could look like as follows:
Take a small, but prominent baseline or infrastructure module that we know or assume many people use (even many in illegal ways (just like Tom pointed out) as of today) were a solid majority (of OCA members) and the whole responsible PSC believes would be better if it were licensed under LGPL (or at least has no objections). Lets the responsible owners induce the license change from AGPL to LGPL, advertise this change, make an effort to publish and post about the module, the change and its useful usage, encourage to actively contribute...
and than measure diversity, total amount, quality of contributions, speed of migrations etc. for that very module over a longer period of time (+/- 1 year) and compare it with the AGPL population of similarly reasonable baseline and infrastructure moduls licensed under AGPL.
That way we can easily test hypothesis without taking much risk. If the most supported hypothesis (i.e. some few baseline / infra modules LGPL, 80% business logic modules AGPL -> induces more adoption / contribution) we should see first supporting data from that experiment.
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 17:23 schrieb Raphaël Valyi:
…
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Graeme Gellatly - 01:01 - 13 Sep 2025 -
AW: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Dear OCA,
I hope it’s okay to share a few thoughts — I mainly wanted to offer my personal perspective on the ongoing discussion.
Regarding licensing (AGPL vs LGPL), I understand that this is an important topic, and it could be very helpful if OCA is able to provide clear and shared guidelines. I don’t want to delve too deeply into the debate myself, as there are experts for that, but having clarity here seems essential for everyone to work with confidence. At the same time, from my point of view, there should be a return to OCA when developing code on top of specific solutions.
Apart from the licensing issue, and even if this is not the main scope of the discussion, from my point of view, some of the challenges we face seem to be more about processes than licensing. Contributions can sometimes take longer to move forward than expected, and occasionally people may end up fighting over PRs — which can feel counterproductive and highlights the potential value of clearer guidelines. I feel that finding ways to reduce these bottlenecks and make contribution paths smoother and more straightforward could help preserve the open and collaborative spirit of OCA.
I should mention that I am not deeply involved in OCA yet, but I would be happy to support it wherever I can in a manageable way. Having a small, clear group of decision-makers to provide guidance and set a path seems very helpful, while also encouraging everyone to remain open to compromise in order to stay constructive — which I think is one of the most important aspects of good working communities. I really appreciate the open-source character of the OCA, and I feel that we all risk losing that spirit if careful attention isn’t given not only to licensing, but also to contributions and processes.
Just my 2 cents — this is purely my personal observation and opinion, shared with the intention of contributing constructively.
Cheers Nils
Von: Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>
Datum: Samstag, 13. September 2025 um 11:08
An: Contributors <contributors@odoo-community.org>
Betreff: Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
ACHTUNG! Diese E-Mail stammt von außerhalb der Organisation. Klicken Sie nicht auf Links und öffnen Sie keine Anhänge, es sei denn, Sie kennen den Absender und wissen, dass der Inhalt sicher ist.
Thank you Tom.
Indeed the other thread reads that it is related to overlapping core issues.
Developing the Governance work-group may be a good place to start. I haven't been very active within OCA as I am now less involved in the details of the software however I am interested in supporting the organisational strategy through this or other groups. Having been involved with Odoo since the start and OCA since early days, various thoughts have developed as to the direction that OCA and ecosystem might take - there is great potential.
I can't make OCA days unfortunately however welcome discussing these matters at the expo or during an evening.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
On 13/09/2025 10:42, Tom Blauwendraat wrote:Stuart, +10 to this. We must resolve our issues as a community.
You must have also followed the other thread which started with contribution statistics and evolved into questions of governance. It is all interrelated: what is the OCA mission, how does the OCA organize itself to execute it, who decides. And how can we remain united.
There will be space in the OCA days to come together in person and discuss these issues, but, since the matters are complex, and not everyone is there, this will not be enough time.
The best idea I can come up with so far as a path towards actual resolution is, in coming months, to add more people with experience to what currently is the "Governance Workgroup". Or a new workgroup around Mission or the like. I think for good perspectives we also need people like you there, who have experience in other open source communites, so that we don't stare blindly only at what we know.
With such a group we would be able to work out proposals and go over them with all stakeholders, external experts, and then bring it to an assembly. A new board can facilitate this, but can't do this alone.
-Tom
13 sep. 2025 10:13:40 Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
This is a valuable thread and I really do appreciate the effort that each has put in to their points.
The conversation has veered from the original licence question and again highlighted unresolved issues within this community. These themes are also current across other FLOSS communities.
To give an external perspective, my work with leading the Perl and Raku Foundation is less impacted by these matters simply as most Perl modules and software are MIT or Artistic licence. This permissiveness has enabled wide adoption and least resistance across the user base. All who contribute their time to Perl and Raku do this in the knowledge that companies do and will take their work, use for profit, and may not give anything back. Many volunteers are sponsored by their employers and some are funded by the Foundation. The Foundation is funded by a very small minority of organisations, most SME, who's businesses depend on Perl. The Foundation plays an active role in funding, governance and IP management, and it takes a critical leadership role when community matters get stuck.
In my view, the different positions in this thread relate more to different desired outcomes, and I feel that these would be useful to define - what is it you want to make happen. It may be that different outcomes can be accommodated once understood, then the mechanism for licensing may become less contentious.
My position: Odoo (software) is significant because of the Open Source commitment in the early days and this must be protected if the ecosystem, core and modules are to sustain in the long run (whatever Odoo S.A. choose to do). It must be set up so it can't later be unwound - my business needs confidence in a solid legal and technical base to build upon.
Maybe we need to open new subjects:
1. How to generate more contributors to OCA Projects
- Odoo (software) is gaining wider global acknowledgement
- Open Source is accepted (even sought) as part of general business - the pie is growing
- Uncertainty repels contributors
- What are the actions? Who will do them?
2. How can licensing be used to deliver desired outcomes of the OCA ecosystem
- First - what are the desired outcomes?
- There is lack of clarity as to how AGPL requirements are triggered (derived works) - should OCA invite advice from active legal person in the field?
- Should licence violations be pointed out?
3. What must the OCA do to lead the community on this matter?
- Convene workshops, online or in person
- Take opinions on board, make decisions and set direction
- How to drive these points forward without exhausting everyone
It would be great to have these discussions facilitated in person around OCA days or the Expo (I can't be at OCA days, I will be at the Expo next to OCA).
I hope this can be resolved and we can move on to immediate subjects like security and consideration of CRA, PLD and other EU regulations, understand if the OCA takes the position of legal steward in light of these new policy demands, plus developing the OCA and generating business for the ecosystem.
My final thought is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but to respect the time of all involved, we must get to an answer.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
--Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe--Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
IM: xmpp:sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Nils Coenen - 12:30 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Community Contribution Statistics
Thank you! Thanks to all in this thread for their clear thoughts as well.
PS. and Raphael for the link to Yoshi's article! Loved it, very recognizable
On 9/13/25 00:33, Frederik Kramer wrote:
Thanks Tom,
and i really hope you will run again. Your fresh, yet clean thoughts already helped a lot during the last year.
Best Frederik
Am 13.09.25 um 00:12 schrieb Tom Blauwendraat:
If I may also share something from the perspective of a "new" board member who spent now a year.
We started out this year with a feeling of urgency to make changes, and some good plans.
But, it seemed to me like the whole idea of the "Board" was conceived in a time where it was that Board who not only decided, but also executed those things that were deemed necessary to do. Whereas the rest of OCA basically did however they pleased in the anarchy (or, if you will, PSC-herded meritocracy) of Github.
Now, we are in a time where the OCA is facing complex problems and big tasks.
For complex problems, finding first consensus between 8 people with each their opinions and limited time to discuss, is already difficult, let alone that it's then necessary to get all the stakeholders on board also, for which the only official arenas are this monstrosity of a mailing list and the yearly event.
For big tasks, executors are needed, and there the tools currently are: RFQ's, some paid employees, volunteer workgroups, and enthusiastic individuals.
I don't think the solution is to be found in having new or more board members - I think the current board members should be wise enough, but:
1. They should not be the ones that make the big decisions, and neither should this mailinglist be - we need to make better use of the AGA or of delegate meetings, in order to make the tough calls with all stakeholders present. Then the Board has a clear mandate and mission.
2. They should be surrounded by enough people that can execute things, because the wiser they are (and you want Wise Men in your board), the less time they will have
3. They should not be such a large group. If you have less people, but each with a bit more time and energy available to respond quickly to pressing issues, it is easier to act.
So I think it's not about finding new Board members per se, although having like 2 new people with new energy is obviously nice; I think it's rather about having a lean, dedicated Board, a good decisionmaking structure, and all other work coordinated via workgroups and PSC teams.
In which case I'll personally also gladly step away from the Board, because I can make myself useful in the WG teams that I like, the PSC teams of the modules I like, and I can give my opinion and vote in an assembly, to proposals prepared partly by the Board and partly by stakeholding members themselves.
The above is just my observation/opinion. But I thought I'd share because it's distinctly different from "We need new Board members". If I am going to try and enthusiate people at the OCA days to become a volunteer, I'd rather try to get them to join a WG.
-Tom
12 sep. 2025 23:02:48 Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for sharing. I fully understand what you mean. I have been in the board and it is not easy. We both know that. It is quite easy to complain from the other side on the work done by the board, but we can be clear on one thing, you are doing a great job there and you all try to keep the OCA running. The same happens from the contributors, but from another perspective.
I also agree that the key is to ensure renewal by motivating more people to step forward. There have been years with several candidates and years with a small set of new possible board members, however. It is not easy to find people interested on the job.
For me, the point was never to accuse anyone of holding on to a seat (and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression). What matters is that we create space for fresh perspectives while also valuing the commitment of experienced members. Both are essential for a healthy balance. It is hard to find it, but we should do it for the sake of the OCA.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:47, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
I honestly think that people running for the board of the OCA really want to devote a good junk of their time "to make Odoo mightier together" and help us all to succeed what we belive is our joint dreams instead of taking and keeping prestigous role just because.
Unfortunately many context factors don't render that pursue (i.e. being impactful AND successful on the Board) easy. If we have enough volontueers this year running and forming a new board, maybe you include again, with a really tough agenda and problems already on the line or insight (among as trivial stuff as financially sustain the OCA), i am happy to devote my OCA time from a back seat and let others do this job, not being indirectly accused for taking one of the precious seats again.
At least i would not have to take care anymore about things i DO NOT love nearly as much as contributing real community value to an overall healthy and motivated community (that was my initial motivation to run for the board).
The reality is, most of the work on the board has not been too much fun (especially lately) and am happy to hand things over to new people. Remember i personally tried to convince 5-6 newbies for the board last year out of which 1 (namely Ivan) was running and has been elected. Ivan did a great job and was a great value to the team so far. Same was Tom. So in order to move things into that direction we may organize a little on stage "running for the board" campaign next week in which volunteers can present themselfes and their agendas to the members around. What do you think ?
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 18:57 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Tom,
Sadly, I am unable to come this year for some personal reasons. I am sure that we can make an online meeting if you are interested.
Regarding the board, this has been a recurring topic in the community. What strikes me as odd is that while renewal is regularly encouraged, most former board members still run for re-election. In some cases, even when there were enough new candidates to fill the seats, the former members were all re-elected.
If we don’t intentionally make space for new candidates, it will be difficult to bring in fresh perspectives. I don’t have a definitive solution, but I believe it’s worth reflecting on how we can better encourage and support renewal.
I know that there is some new faces on the board (like you this year). I hope this trend continues.
Kind regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 16:52, Tom Blauwendraat (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
On 8/22/25 15:32, Enric Tobella Alomar wrote: > On the Board, I share your concern. At my first OCA Days (2018 or > 2019), the Board asked for proposals to completely renew itself. Since > then, few members have stepped aside, but some remain there. Maybe, at > some point, stepping aside could help bring new perspectives. What we have tried to do here in the past year is to form Workgroups, with the goal of diverting the actual work there. Nobody wants to be a Board member, but there are a lot more people who want to contribute to a small part that they feel enthousiastic about. This idea could be built upon. > Personally, I would like to see a mandate limit on the Board, PSC > formal election definition and a clear reflection of how each role is > decided, but it is my personal opinion. Will you be at the OCA days to join discussions on how to come from opinions to actual proposals that can be implemented?
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Tom Blauwendraat - 11:45 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Thank you Tom.
Indeed the other thread reads that it is related to overlapping core issues.
Developing the Governance work-group may be a good place to start. I haven't been very active within OCA as I am now less involved in the details of the software however I am interested in supporting the organisational strategy through this or other groups. Having been involved with Odoo since the start and OCA since early days, various thoughts have developed as to the direction that OCA and ecosystem might take - there is great potential.
I can't make OCA days unfortunately however welcome discussing these matters at the expo or during an evening.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
On 13/09/2025 10:42, Tom Blauwendraat wrote:
Stuart, +10 to this. We must resolve our issues as a community.
You must have also followed the other thread which started with contribution statistics and evolved into questions of governance. It is all interrelated: what is the OCA mission, how does the OCA organize itself to execute it, who decides. And how can we remain united.
There will be space in the OCA days to come together in person and discuss these issues, but, since the matters are complex, and not everyone is there, this will not be enough time.
The best idea I can come up with so far as a path towards actual resolution is, in coming months, to add more people with experience to what currently is the "Governance Workgroup". Or a new workgroup around Mission or the like. I think for good perspectives we also need people like you there, who have experience in other open source communites, so that we don't stare blindly only at what we know.
With such a group we would be able to work out proposals and go over them with all stakeholders, external experts, and then bring it to an assembly. A new board can facilitate this, but can't do this alone.
-Tom
13 sep. 2025 10:13:40 Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
This is a valuable thread and I really do appreciate the effort that each has put in to their points.
The conversation has veered from the original licence question and again highlighted unresolved issues within this community. These themes are also current across other FLOSS communities.
To give an external perspective, my work with leading the Perl and Raku Foundation is less impacted by these matters simply as most Perl modules and software are MIT or Artistic licence. This permissiveness has enabled wide adoption and least resistance across the user base. All who contribute their time to Perl and Raku do this in the knowledge that companies do and will take their work, use for profit, and may not give anything back. Many volunteers are sponsored by their employers and some are funded by the Foundation. The Foundation is funded by a very small minority of organisations, most SME, who's businesses depend on Perl. The Foundation plays an active role in funding, governance and IP management, and it takes a critical leadership role when community matters get stuck.
In my view, the different positions in this thread relate more to different desired outcomes, and I feel that these would be useful to define - what is it you want to make happen. It may be that different outcomes can be accommodated once understood, then the mechanism for licensing may become less contentious.
My position: Odoo (software) is significant because of the Open Source commitment in the early days and this must be protected if the ecosystem, core and modules are to sustain in the long run (whatever Odoo S.A. choose to do). It must be set up so it can't later be unwound - my business needs confidence in a solid legal and technical base to build upon.
Maybe we need to open new subjects:
1. How to generate more contributors to OCA Projects
- Odoo (software) is gaining wider global acknowledgement
- Open Source is accepted (even sought) as part of general business - the pie is growing
- Uncertainty repels contributors
- What are the actions? Who will do them?
2. How can licensing be used to deliver desired outcomes of the OCA ecosystem
- First - what are the desired outcomes?
- There is lack of clarity as to how AGPL requirements are triggered (derived works) - should OCA invite advice from active legal person in the field?
- Should licence violations be pointed out?
3. What must the OCA do to lead the community on this matter?
- Convene workshops, online or in person
- Take opinions on board, make decisions and set direction
- How to drive these points forward without exhausting everyone
It would be great to have these discussions facilitated in person around OCA days or the Expo (I can't be at OCA days, I will be at the Expo next to OCA).
I hope this can be resolved and we can move on to immediate subjects like security and consideration of CRA, PLD and other EU regulations, understand if the OCA takes the position of legal steward in light of these new policy demands, plus developing the OCA and generating business for the ecosystem.
My final thought is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but to respect the time of all involved, we must get to an answer.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
--
Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
by Stuart J Mackintosh - 11:06 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Stuart, +10 to this. We must resolve our issues as a community.
You must have also followed the other thread which started with contribution statistics and evolved into questions of governance. It is all interrelated: what is the OCA mission, how does the OCA organize itself to execute it, who decides. And how can we remain united.
There will be space in the OCA days to come together in person and discuss these issues, but, since the matters are complex, and not everyone is there, this will not be enough time.
The best idea I can come up with so far as a path towards actual resolution is, in coming months, to add more people with experience to what currently is the "Governance Workgroup". Or a new workgroup around Mission or the like. I think for good perspectives we also need people like you there, who have experience in other open source communites, so that we don't stare blindly only at what we know.
With such a group we would be able to work out proposals and go over them with all stakeholders, external experts, and then bring it to an assembly. A new board can facilitate this, but can't do this alone.
-Tom
13 sep. 2025 10:13:40 Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
This is a valuable thread and I really do appreciate the effort that each has put in to their points.
The conversation has veered from the original licence question and again highlighted unresolved issues within this community. These themes are also current across other FLOSS communities.
To give an external perspective, my work with leading the Perl and Raku Foundation is less impacted by these matters simply as most Perl modules and software are MIT or Artistic licence. This permissiveness has enabled wide adoption and least resistance across the user base. All who contribute their time to Perl and Raku do this in the knowledge that companies do and will take their work, use for profit, and may not give anything back. Many volunteers are sponsored by their employers and some are funded by the Foundation. The Foundation is funded by a very small minority of organisations, most SME, who's businesses depend on Perl. The Foundation plays an active role in funding, governance and IP management, and it takes a critical leadership role when community matters get stuck.
In my view, the different positions in this thread relate more to different desired outcomes, and I feel that these would be useful to define - what is it you want to make happen. It may be that different outcomes can be accommodated once understood, then the mechanism for licensing may become less contentious.
My position: Odoo (software) is significant because of the Open Source commitment in the early days and this must be protected if the ecosystem, core and modules are to sustain in the long run (whatever Odoo S.A. choose to do). It must be set up so it can't later be unwound - my business needs confidence in a solid legal and technical base to build upon.
Maybe we need to open new subjects:
1. How to generate more contributors to OCA Projects
- Odoo (software) is gaining wider global acknowledgement
- Open Source is accepted (even sought) as part of general business - the pie is growing
- Uncertainty repels contributors
- What are the actions? Who will do them?
2. How can licensing be used to deliver desired outcomes of the OCA ecosystem
- First - what are the desired outcomes?
- There is lack of clarity as to how AGPL requirements are triggered (derived works) - should OCA invite advice from active legal person in the field?
- Should licence violations be pointed out?
3. What must the OCA do to lead the community on this matter?
- Convene workshops, online or in person
- Take opinions on board, make decisions and set direction
- How to drive these points forward without exhausting everyone
It would be great to have these discussions facilitated in person around OCA days or the Expo (I can't be at OCA days, I will be at the Expo next to OCA).
I hope this can be resolved and we can move on to immediate subjects like security and consideration of CRA, PLD and other EU regulations, understand if the OCA takes the position of legal steward in light of these new policy demands, plus developing the OCA and generating business for the ecosystem.
My final thought is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but to respect the time of all involved, we must get to an answer.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
--
Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Tom Blauwendraat - 10:40 - 13 Sep 2025 -
The Consultant Working Group is looking for you!
Dear members,
Did you know we have a working group for consultant / functional people?
We are looking for new members in this group so if you are interested, please contact me (Julie) at julie@odoo-community.org.
The “Raison d’être” of the group is to help and attract functional people (non-technical) to contribute to the OCA.
Here are the requirements to be part of this group:
- More than 3 years of experience with OCA tools (GitHub, Weblate…) and modules
- More than 3 years of experience as a Consultant on Odoo
- More than 3 years of experience with Odoo
- Availability (1 wg meeting a month + 4h /month to contribute)
- Approval from the majority of the actual members of the WG
We will meet at the OCA Days on Monday morning so if you are interested, come and meet us (and contact me to let me know).
P.S. In October, we will start a series of Support group meeting for functional / consultant so even if you don't meet the requirements to be part of the group, you can still attend these meetings.
More info here : https://odoo-community.org/event/oca-consultants-support-group-session-2025-10-07-206/register
by Julie LeBrun (OCA) - 10:21 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
This is a valuable thread and I really do appreciate the effort that each has put in to their points.
The conversation has veered from the original licence question and again highlighted unresolved issues within this community. These themes are also current across other FLOSS communities.
To give an external perspective, my work with leading the Perl and Raku Foundation is less impacted by these matters simply as most Perl modules and software are MIT or Artistic licence. This permissiveness has enabled wide adoption and least resistance across the user base. All who contribute their time to Perl and Raku do this in the knowledge that companies do and will take their work, use for profit, and may not give anything back. Many volunteers are sponsored by their employers and some are funded by the Foundation. The Foundation is funded by a very small minority of organisations, most SME, who's businesses depend on Perl. The Foundation plays an active role in funding, governance and IP management, and it takes a critical leadership role when community matters get stuck.
In my view, the different positions in this thread relate more to different desired outcomes, and I feel that these would be useful to define - what is it you want to make happen. It may be that different outcomes can be accommodated once understood, then the mechanism for licensing may become less contentious.
My position: Odoo (software) is significant because of the Open Source commitment in the early days and this must be protected if the ecosystem, core and modules are to sustain in the long run (whatever Odoo S.A. choose to do). It must be set up so it can't later be unwound - my business needs confidence in a solid legal and technical base to build upon.
Maybe we need to open new subjects:
1. How to generate more contributors to OCA Projects
- Odoo (software) is gaining wider global acknowledgement
- Open Source is accepted (even sought) as part of general business - the pie is growing
- Uncertainty repels contributors
- What are the actions? Who will do them?
2. How can licensing be used to deliver desired outcomes of the OCA ecosystem
- First - what are the desired outcomes?
- There is lack of clarity as to how AGPL requirements are triggered (derived works) - should OCA invite advice from active legal person in the field?
- Should licence violations be pointed out?
3. What must the OCA do to lead the community on this matter?
- Convene workshops, online or in person
- Take opinions on board, make decisions and set direction
- How to drive these points forward without exhausting everyone
It would be great to have these discussions facilitated in person around OCA days or the Expo (I can't be at OCA days, I will be at the Expo next to OCA).
I hope this can be resolved and we can move on to immediate subjects like security and consideration of CRA, PLD and other EU regulations, understand if the OCA takes the position of legal steward in light of these new policy demands, plus developing the OCA and generating business for the ecosystem.
My final thought is that there isn't a right or wrong answer, but to respect the time of all involved, we must get to an answer.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
--
Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
by Stuart J Mackintosh - 10:11 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Nicely explained Graeme, makes it all the more clear.
One question though: how do you then see the case of a custom module having to depend on an Enterprise OPL module as well as an OCA AGPL module? What license would that module need to have, and is it legal? (Not talking about redistribution here, just building such a module and installing it on client's system)
13 sep. 2025 00:32:02 Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
For me AGPL is the best license. IMHO it should be the license choice for everything including Odoo CE.
For clients it is the best (despite all the FUD in this email chain). The simple reason is clause 9, no requirement to accept as they are not propagating or modifying. This renders clause 13 moot which is what everyone gets their knickers in a twist about. Way back when in 2015 we talked to a lot of people including the author of AGPL, engaged specialist lawyers etc this was the basis that you see in our current policy. Furthermore, insofar as a partner/developer develops dependent modules, they are now bound to provide their client the source code, even though client is not required to accept licence, developer is. So client is even further protected and avoids lockin.
For (at least open source minded) partners/developers it is the best. You can develop extensions, do modifications and convey them to your client, along with source and yes it is licensed AGPL. But if someone extends your work and puts on App store you have some protections. It allows the software to grow and evolve and encourage contribution. Whats more is you can extend LGPL without fear the LGPL author will take your contributions. OpenOffice vs LibreOffice success is testament to that.
For Odoo it would be best. It would protect them from SaaS startups under clause 13. Now I hear you say, but enterprise is incompatible so it must be LGPL. This is simply not true, insofar you believe that Odoo correctly relicensed and owns copyrights to all the source. All they needed to do was dual license.
So why do we end up with emails like this, Odoo's decision etc. Because SaaS providers, and vendors like Microsoft have done such a good job of spreading FUD, a lot of which is repeated here that everyone is afraid of it, when it should be embraced. Literally the only people that should fear AGPL is unscrupulous SaaS providers and public for sale app developers.
Insofar as clients need protections around "proprietary code" being given to other people, that is a contractual issue between them and their partner. But let's say your client has really bought the FUD, LGPL is still a bad choice because it forces client acceptance, GPL would be better which is basically the AGPL without network clause.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Sure,
If I remember properly, we have 3 repositories that are mainly LGPL: DMS, EDI-Framework and Queue Job
I will take EDI-Framework as a base as it has several modules in the repo. It has 17 modules in 18 and it as been in its repo for 5 versions for a total of 197 PRs. this makes an average of 39 PRs for each version. Also, it has 49 contributors
On the other hand I will use helpdesk as it has a similar number of modules in 18 (17) and it is completly AGPL. It has been there for 9 versions for a total of 686 PRs, that makes an average of 76 PRs for version with a total of 120 contributors
It is true that EDI-Framework has some special cases like the complexity of components and so on, but with similar sizes in number of modules we can see quite a difference in number of contributors and PRs done.
I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation (spurious relationships are one of the first fun lessons in statistics), but in my view, this makes it quite clear that licensing alone is not the decisive factor in how contributors engage with a project.
Kind regards
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:57, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
ok, i obviously didn't recall this fact. In order to make this comparison stable, we should find comparable siblings of those to by any stable internal complexity measure (maybe McCabe or Halstead is enough for now) and than compare the contributions (again by stable measures) over time
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 21:41 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Frederik,
Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
I agree with the idea of experimenting before making real changes, but I think we need to be cautious with the assumption that moving from AGPL to LGPL automatically results in higher adoption and more contributions. We already have a couple of real-world “experiments” inside OCA itself:
- edi-framework
- queue_job
Both were licensed under LGPL rather than AGPL, and yet they did not attract significantly more contributors or maintainers compared to their AGPL counterparts. If anything, the contributor base has remained relatively small and fixed over the years. This suggests that the license alone is not the determining factor for contributions — other aspects like module complexity, required expertise, or the integrators’ business model also play a huge role.
So the licensing impact turns out to be limited (as our current examples suggest).
For me, it would be more relevant to study why communities like "Spanish Odoo Association" are able to attract so many supporters. They have a similar message, but they have a different strategy that allows to engage most of EE companies. Maybe these people are not making PRs, but at least they make a monetary effort that helps contributors.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:22, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Raphael,
as always very detailed and very insightful thoughts. Honestly, i can't add much value here than just saying you are right with all you said in my opinion. The 20/80 relation for LGPL/AGPL sounds quite reasonable (even if Pareto edges almost always apply).
I'll take the fear / discomfort of Pedro (and Enric) very reasonable, so instead of doing to much to fast, I would suggest to start with a controlled experiment (that even Pedro and Enric would be willing to agree to).
The experiment could look like as follows:
Take a small, but prominent baseline or infrastructure module that we know or assume many people use (even many in illegal ways (just like Tom pointed out) as of today) were a solid majority (of OCA members) and the whole responsible PSC believes would be better if it were licensed under LGPL (or at least has no objections). Lets the responsible owners induce the license change from AGPL to LGPL, advertise this change, make an effort to publish and post about the module, the change and its useful usage, encourage to actively contribute...
and than measure diversity, total amount, quality of contributions, speed of migrations etc. for that very module over a longer period of time (+/- 1 year) and compare it with the AGPL population of similarly reasonable baseline and infrastructure moduls licensed under AGPL.
That way we can easily test hypothesis without taking much risk. If the most supported hypothesis (i.e. some few baseline / infra modules LGPL, 80% business logic modules AGPL -> induces more adoption / contribution) we should see first supporting data from that experiment.
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 17:23 schrieb Raphaël Valyi:
…
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Tom Blauwendraat - 10:11 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Hi,TLRD;- even with good intention, it's hard to control internally (even with manifesto)- to my knowledge, there are zero control and zero enforcement about the respect of AGPL for most of the companies using Odoo- constraints of AGPL only applies to people with good intentions and understanding of licenses- fairly easy to bypass AGPL with glue modules, yet counterproductive- AGPL/LGPL is a small (arguable) factor to increase/reduce the contributions2 more cents in the jar ...Answering the question of Sylvain about a payment per month to use dual license modules: I think that it could be a one time fee or one time fee per version (like Odoo apps), but a monthly payment would be a pain to manage. I think that it could be reasonable from a commercial point of view but ...How to enforce? All this discussion assumes that all people have good intentions and high integrity and understanding of licenses. I imagine that there is zero enforcement today to ensure that the propagation of AGPL is respected and I think that it would be very difficult to put in place. So in the end, the only ones who are "forced" to comply with AGPL principles are the one with perfect integrity and who understand the implications of AGPL and who realized early enough in the implementation plan that AGPL is being used (early enough means when the project is sold to a customer, then ensuring that this customer would agree to pay for the dual license tools (then even 'manifestoo check-licence' could not help as their is no project existing yet in a repository). So even with good intention, it's hard to control internally, the new BA/PM you recruited 1 year ago, might not have understood yet the impact of OCA licenses with OCA modules.I think that AGPL is almost a joke as there must be countless AGPL modules used in OPL/LGPL projects because today their is zero control and zero enforcement about the respect AGPL for most of the companies using Odoo. How many cases in 2024 ? How many in 2025? Is there really a good way to spend OCA effort to track abuse of licenses?Now, with great integrity and being compliant with the law, I understand that it is possible to create glue AGPL modules that would make legal bridges between closed source modules and OCA AGPL modules... that's kind of the loose / loose solution that people with indefectible integrity who want to protect their IP are left with. With Glue modules, they can respect the law, keep using the original AGPL module which let them to contribute back to the original module if they want. But that's often counter productive.There are many many roadblocks for companies to contribute more code to OCA and the main one is probably not the license. As highlighted by others, LGPL could be an encouragement to contribute more as people would not be scared of AGPL constraints and would therefore be more encouraged to use and therefore contribute back.Regards,Jean-CharlesOn Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 5:31 AM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:For me AGPL is the best license. IMHO it should be the license choice for everything including Odoo CE.For clients it is the best (despite all the FUD in this email chain). The simple reason is clause 9, no requirement to accept as they are not propagating or modifying. This renders clause 13 moot which is what everyone gets their knickers in a twist about. Way back when in 2015 we talked to a lot of people including the author of AGPL, engaged specialist lawyers etc this was the basis that you see in our current policy. Furthermore, insofar as a partner/developer develops dependent modules, they are now bound to provide their client the source code, even though client is not required to accept licence, developer is. So client is even further protected and avoids lockin.For (at least open source minded) partners/developers it is the best. You can develop extensions, do modifications and convey them to your client, along with source and yes it is licensed AGPL. But if someone extends your work and puts on App store you have some protections. It allows the software to grow and evolve and encourage contribution. Whats more is you can extend LGPL without fear the LGPL author will take your contributions. OpenOffice vs LibreOffice success is testament to that.For Odoo it would be best. It would protect them from SaaS startups under clause 13. Now I hear you say, but enterprise is incompatible so it must be LGPL. This is simply not true, insofar you believe that Odoo correctly relicensed and owns copyrights to all the source. All they needed to do was dual license.So why do we end up with emails like this, Odoo's decision etc. Because SaaS providers, and vendors like Microsoft have done such a good job of spreading FUD, a lot of which is repeated here that everyone is afraid of it, when it should be embraced. Literally the only people that should fear AGPL is unscrupulous SaaS providers and public for sale app developers.Insofar as clients need protections around "proprietary code" being given to other people, that is a contractual issue between them and their partner. But let's say your client has really bought the FUD, LGPL is still a bad choice because it forces client acceptance, GPL would be better which is basically the AGPL without network clause.On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:Sure,If I remember properly, we have 3 repositories that are mainly LGPL: DMS, EDI-Framework and Queue JobI will take EDI-Framework as a base as it has several modules in the repo. It has 17 modules in 18 and it as been in its repo for 5 versions for a total of 197 PRs. this makes an average of 39 PRs for each version. Also, it has 49 contributorsOn the other hand I will use helpdesk as it has a similar number of modules in 18 (17) and it is completly AGPL. It has been there for 9 versions for a total of 686 PRs, that makes an average of 76 PRs for version with a total of 120 contributorsIt is true that EDI-Framework has some special cases like the complexity of components and so on, but with similar sizes in number of modules we can see quite a difference in number of contributors and PRs done.I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation (spurious relationships are one of the first fun lessons in statistics), but in my view, this makes it quite clear that licensing alone is not the decisive factor in how contributors engage with a project.Kind regardsEl vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:57, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:Hi Enric,
ok, i obviously didn't recall this fact. In order to make this comparison stable, we should find comparable siblings of those to by any stable internal complexity measure (maybe McCabe or Halstead is enough for now) and than compare the contributions (again by stable measures) over time
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 21:41 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Frederik,
Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
I agree with the idea of experimenting before making real changes, but I think we need to be cautious with the assumption that moving from AGPL to LGPL automatically results in higher adoption and more contributions. We already have a couple of real-world “experiments” inside OCA itself:
- edi-framework
- queue_job
Both were licensed under LGPL rather than AGPL, and yet they did not attract significantly more contributors or maintainers compared to their AGPL counterparts. If anything, the contributor base has remained relatively small and fixed over the years. This suggests that the license alone is not the determining factor for contributions — other aspects like module complexity, required expertise, or the integrators’ business model also play a huge role.
So the licensing impact turns out to be limited (as our current examples suggest).
For me, it would be more relevant to study why communities like "Spanish Odoo Association" are able to attract so many supporters. They have a similar message, but they have a different strategy that allows to engage most of EE companies. Maybe these people are not making PRs, but at least they make a monetary effort that helps contributors.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:22, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Raphael,
as always very detailed and very insightful thoughts. Honestly, i can't add much value here than just saying you are right with all you said in my opinion. The 20/80 relation for LGPL/AGPL sounds quite reasonable (even if Pareto edges almost always apply).
I'll take the fear / discomfort of Pedro (and Enric) very reasonable, so instead of doing to much to fast, I would suggest to start with a controlled experiment (that even Pedro and Enric would be willing to agree to).
The experiment could look like as follows:
Take a small, but prominent baseline or infrastructure module that we know or assume many people use (even many in illegal ways (just like Tom pointed out) as of today) were a solid majority (of OCA members) and the whole responsible PSC believes would be better if it were licensed under LGPL (or at least has no objections). Lets the responsible owners induce the license change from AGPL to LGPL, advertise this change, make an effort to publish and post about the module, the change and its useful usage, encourage to actively contribute...
and than measure diversity, total amount, quality of contributions, speed of migrations etc. for that very module over a longer period of time (+/- 1 year) and compare it with the AGPL population of similarly reasonable baseline and infrastructure moduls licensed under AGPL.
That way we can easily test hypothesis without taking much risk. If the most supported hypothesis (i.e. some few baseline / infra modules LGPL, 80% business logic modules AGPL -> induces more adoption / contribution) we should see first supporting data from that experiment.
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 17:23 schrieb Raphaël Valyi:
Hello, I think I need to share how I see the big picture.
But first, let me exemplify again with an Odoo market I know very well. You may know that OCA/l10-brazil is the most active OCA repo (14k commits, 4000+ PRs, 150k lines of code, 70 contributors). Not because Brazil is an ERP eldorado but exactly because it is often pointed as the hardest ERP market (you need 200+ tax fields on an invoice line, a company doesn't use all of them but certainly some 60-80, a diversity of 80% companies use may be 180 of them. Same thing e-invoicing has 800 fiscal fields and is over SOAP...).Well there are now 50 official Odoo partners in Brazil, I'm pretty solid, the large majority is a scam of disposable noobs (half life = 1.5 year) who believed it was just about reselling Odoo EE. The vast majority just fail their projects like lemmings (they call us later) as soon as they venture outside of CRM or project management. As I follow the Github notifications I can guarantee you these 50 partners never contributed a SINGLE PR to the OCA. In fact it seems only people unable to do a line of code or use Google to get an overlook would partner. So the selection is pretty inverted (Dunning Krueger)... Instead, aside from Akretion, you now have Escodoo and Engenere who are serious people, CE only, and contributing many PRs to the OCA (outside of OCA/l10-brazil as well). But when I read this from Quartile https://www.quartile.co/en_US/blog/odoo-bits-pieces-1/essential-criteria-for-selecting-your-odoo-partner-as-an-end-user-company-120 let's say it matches my experience.
I also know the French market very well as I pretty much started it 15 years ago (remember openerp.com used the open source ERP whilepaper I wrote at Smile on their frontpage for some 3 years). And I can tell you the quality of the official partner network dropped a lot. 10 years ago they were a well intentioned elite (before Odoo turned it into a "market for lemon", and now, aside from a few exceptions they are mostly a scam, mediocre at best. Less than 5% of these French partners contribute PRs to the OCA on a yearly basis...
Overall, I feel Odoo is doing an unassumed transition from an innovative customizable ERP framework to a SaaS product. In fact they grew a bubble since the start. Since they had to rival with the $ 20 millions inflated Openbravo bubble, continuing with their 10x exaggerated SaaS business model from 2010 for Sofinnova (Fabien shared it with me, as the 2nd partner on the American continent, I helped convince Sofinnova, I protested to Fabien it was inflated but kept quiet as he suggested). Then came the "sorrySAP" crap in 2013, the invention of the millions of happy users worldwide, the $ 500 millions secondary market investments...
Odoo themselves raised little money (on the primary market), less than $ 15 millions I think. In fact, since the start that is the partner network who fueled the growth. Then Odoo "pivoted" and dumped the "stupid partners who believed in that free software concept", made all the impossible early cases possible, did a crazy R&D... Remember that the 1st TinyERP web client didn't come from TinyERP themselves but was a 3rd party contribution (by Axelor)...In a way Odoo externalized the cost of the bubble to its partner network: "sign your project with the latest noob Gold partner who paid for its status and it will be like you will be doing your project with an Acsone or Akretion engineer with 10+ years of Odoo experience". Pretty much what they sold before Odoo EE was a product in itself...
It worked for a while. It grew in quantity while dropping in quality. This is exactly what is called a "market for lemon" with a quality converging to zero as it was shown by Nobel laureate George AkerlofAt the same time Odoo has been improving its product a lot that is very True. Odoo is now quite well coded and is even pretty solid.
Finally, I think Odoo is in the middle of a transition: It is very likely Odoo Enterprise succeeds as a limited SaaS product for micro-companies (like Salesforce, Netsuite). Success will obviously depend on the country. And I think it's quite nice if they meet this success while funding the Odoo CE core under the LGPL license. Much like Basecamp or later Shopify funded the Rails framework.
What I find very "questionable" in fact is that they use the money from these partners they are fooling and their own customers to fund their transition toward an unassumed double agenda of a SaaS ERP for micro-companies. Indeed, Odoo will never assume the average quality of its partner network is crashing to zero.
But this is my vision: yes the partner network will stick to a very low quality for years and years (read again the implacable mechanics of the Market for Lemon) to come and an Odoo Enterprise code and license which is not designed for customizations or extensions but solely to protect the Odoo own IP.And no, I don't see a bright future for this ecosystem of EE partners so that's why I suggest the OCA don't fool itself too much into trying to accommodate with the Odoo SA business roadmap.
And finally, while I said all this, I do share the concern that AGPL is a bit business unfriendly and I do agree we need some LGPL in the OCA to make it easy for companies using Odoo+OCA to protect some of their IP.What is a good mileage? I don't know, maybe 20% LGPL and 80% AGPL would be nice.
@Tom:
About dual licensing again: it should be an opt-in option for the module authors but not forced otherwise you are simply hijacking the AGPL projection the modules authors might expect.And also, the OCA will never be able to check if some business is using a valid LGPL exception module they purchased from the OCA. This simple fact would make it possible the AGPL would be violated massively meanwhile.
Thank you if you read it through ;-)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:57 PM Stéphane Bidoul <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Pedro,
Please don't assert things you can't possibly know about how other companies operate and why.
Best,
-Stéphane
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:32 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
So you have provided the perfect example for confirming the hypothesis that going LGPL, the number of contributions will be reduced: how can it be that Tecnativa, having only 10 persons, contributes 4x more than companies like Camptocamp/Acsone, that have 40/50 persons?
They develop on top of enterprise modules, which they can't share, so they don't contribute to OCA.
They develop more private things, as they are allowed due to the license being LGPL, so they don't contribute back to OCA.
And again, remember the big vendor lock-in you are imposing on your customers installing enterprise modules, being the vendor Odoo S.A., not you. And even not advertising that to your customers (by ignorance or complacency). That's the big win of Odoo doing that the conversation doesn't turn around this.
Regards._______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Raphaël ValyiFounder and consultant
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Jean-Charles Drubay - 03:31 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Community Contribution Statistics
Thanks Tom,
and i really hope you will run again. Your fresh, yet clean thoughts already helped a lot during the last year.
Best Frederik
Am 13.09.25 um 00:12 schrieb Tom Blauwendraat:
If I may also share something from the perspective of a "new" board member who spent now a year.
We started out this year with a feeling of urgency to make changes, and some good plans.
But, it seemed to me like the whole idea of the "Board" was conceived in a time where it was that Board who not only decided, but also executed those things that were deemed necessary to do. Whereas the rest of OCA basically did however they pleased in the anarchy (or, if you will, PSC-herded meritocracy) of Github.
Now, we are in a time where the OCA is facing complex problems and big tasks.
For complex problems, finding first consensus between 8 people with each their opinions and limited time to discuss, is already difficult, let alone that it's then necessary to get all the stakeholders on board also, for which the only official arenas are this monstrosity of a mailing list and the yearly event.
For big tasks, executors are needed, and there the tools currently are: RFQ's, some paid employees, volunteer workgroups, and enthusiastic individuals.
I don't think the solution is to be found in having new or more board members - I think the current board members should be wise enough, but:
1. They should not be the ones that make the big decisions, and neither should this mailinglist be - we need to make better use of the AGA or of delegate meetings, in order to make the tough calls with all stakeholders present. Then the Board has a clear mandate and mission.
2. They should be surrounded by enough people that can execute things, because the wiser they are (and you want Wise Men in your board), the less time they will have
3. They should not be such a large group. If you have less people, but each with a bit more time and energy available to respond quickly to pressing issues, it is easier to act.
So I think it's not about finding new Board members per se, although having like 2 new people with new energy is obviously nice; I think it's rather about having a lean, dedicated Board, a good decisionmaking structure, and all other work coordinated via workgroups and PSC teams.
In which case I'll personally also gladly step away from the Board, because I can make myself useful in the WG teams that I like, the PSC teams of the modules I like, and I can give my opinion and vote in an assembly, to proposals prepared partly by the Board and partly by stakeholding members themselves.
The above is just my observation/opinion. But I thought I'd share because it's distinctly different from "We need new Board members". If I am going to try and enthusiate people at the OCA days to become a volunteer, I'd rather try to get them to join a WG.
-Tom
12 sep. 2025 23:02:48 Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for sharing. I fully understand what you mean. I have been in the board and it is not easy. We both know that. It is quite easy to complain from the other side on the work done by the board, but we can be clear on one thing, you are doing a great job there and you all try to keep the OCA running. The same happens from the contributors, but from another perspective.
I also agree that the key is to ensure renewal by motivating more people to step forward. There have been years with several candidates and years with a small set of new possible board members, however. It is not easy to find people interested on the job.
For me, the point was never to accuse anyone of holding on to a seat (and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression). What matters is that we create space for fresh perspectives while also valuing the commitment of experienced members. Both are essential for a healthy balance. It is hard to find it, but we should do it for the sake of the OCA.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:47, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
I honestly think that people running for the board of the OCA really want to devote a good junk of their time "to make Odoo mightier together" and help us all to succeed what we belive is our joint dreams instead of taking and keeping prestigous role just because.
Unfortunately many context factors don't render that pursue (i.e. being impactful AND successful on the Board) easy. If we have enough volontueers this year running and forming a new board, maybe you include again, with a really tough agenda and problems already on the line or insight (among as trivial stuff as financially sustain the OCA), i am happy to devote my OCA time from a back seat and let others do this job, not being indirectly accused for taking one of the precious seats again.
At least i would not have to take care anymore about things i DO NOT love nearly as much as contributing real community value to an overall healthy and motivated community (that was my initial motivation to run for the board).
The reality is, most of the work on the board has not been too much fun (especially lately) and am happy to hand things over to new people. Remember i personally tried to convince 5-6 newbies for the board last year out of which 1 (namely Ivan) was running and has been elected. Ivan did a great job and was a great value to the team so far. Same was Tom. So in order to move things into that direction we may organize a little on stage "running for the board" campaign next week in which volunteers can present themselfes and their agendas to the members around. What do you think ?
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 18:57 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Tom,
Sadly, I am unable to come this year for some personal reasons. I am sure that we can make an online meeting if you are interested.
Regarding the board, this has been a recurring topic in the community. What strikes me as odd is that while renewal is regularly encouraged, most former board members still run for re-election. In some cases, even when there were enough new candidates to fill the seats, the former members were all re-elected.
If we don’t intentionally make space for new candidates, it will be difficult to bring in fresh perspectives. I don’t have a definitive solution, but I believe it’s worth reflecting on how we can better encourage and support renewal.
I know that there is some new faces on the board (like you this year). I hope this trend continues.
Kind regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 16:52, Tom Blauwendraat (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
On 8/22/25 15:32, Enric Tobella Alomar wrote: > On the Board, I share your concern. At my first OCA Days (2018 or > 2019), the Board asked for proposals to completely renew itself. Since > then, few members have stepped aside, but some remain there. Maybe, at > some point, stepping aside could help bring new perspectives. What we have tried to do here in the past year is to form Workgroups, with the goal of diverting the actual work there. Nobody wants to be a Board member, but there are a lot more people who want to contribute to a small part that they feel enthousiastic about. This idea could be built upon. > Personally, I would like to see a mandate limit on the Board, PSC > formal election definition and a clear reflection of how each role is > decided, but it is my personal opinion. Will you be at the OCA days to join discussions on how to come from opinions to actual proposals that can be implemented?
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
by Frederik Kramer - 12:31 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
For me AGPL is the best license. IMHO it should be the license choice for everything including Odoo CE.For clients it is the best (despite all the FUD in this email chain). The simple reason is clause 9, no requirement to accept as they are not propagating or modifying. This renders clause 13 moot which is what everyone gets their knickers in a twist about. Way back when in 2015 we talked to a lot of people including the author of AGPL, engaged specialist lawyers etc this was the basis that you see in our current policy. Furthermore, insofar as a partner/developer develops dependent modules, they are now bound to provide their client the source code, even though client is not required to accept licence, developer is. So client is even further protected and avoids lockin.For (at least open source minded) partners/developers it is the best. You can develop extensions, do modifications and convey them to your client, along with source and yes it is licensed AGPL. But if someone extends your work and puts on App store you have some protections. It allows the software to grow and evolve and encourage contribution. Whats more is you can extend LGPL without fear the LGPL author will take your contributions. OpenOffice vs LibreOffice success is testament to that.For Odoo it would be best. It would protect them from SaaS startups under clause 13. Now I hear you say, but enterprise is incompatible so it must be LGPL. This is simply not true, insofar you believe that Odoo correctly relicensed and owns copyrights to all the source. All they needed to do was dual license.So why do we end up with emails like this, Odoo's decision etc. Because SaaS providers, and vendors like Microsoft have done such a good job of spreading FUD, a lot of which is repeated here that everyone is afraid of it, when it should be embraced. Literally the only people that should fear AGPL is unscrupulous SaaS providers and public for sale app developers.Insofar as clients need protections around "proprietary code" being given to other people, that is a contractual issue between them and their partner. But let's say your client has really bought the FUD, LGPL is still a bad choice because it forces client acceptance, GPL would be better which is basically the AGPL without network clause.On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:Sure,If I remember properly, we have 3 repositories that are mainly LGPL: DMS, EDI-Framework and Queue JobI will take EDI-Framework as a base as it has several modules in the repo. It has 17 modules in 18 and it as been in its repo for 5 versions for a total of 197 PRs. this makes an average of 39 PRs for each version. Also, it has 49 contributorsOn the other hand I will use helpdesk as it has a similar number of modules in 18 (17) and it is completly AGPL. It has been there for 9 versions for a total of 686 PRs, that makes an average of 76 PRs for version with a total of 120 contributorsIt is true that EDI-Framework has some special cases like the complexity of components and so on, but with similar sizes in number of modules we can see quite a difference in number of contributors and PRs done.I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation (spurious relationships are one of the first fun lessons in statistics), but in my view, this makes it quite clear that licensing alone is not the decisive factor in how contributors engage with a project.Kind regardsEl vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:57, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
ok, i obviously didn't recall this fact. In order to make this comparison stable, we should find comparable siblings of those to by any stable internal complexity measure (maybe McCabe or Halstead is enough for now) and than compare the contributions (again by stable measures) over time
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 21:41 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Frederik,
Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
I agree with the idea of experimenting before making real changes, but I think we need to be cautious with the assumption that moving from AGPL to LGPL automatically results in higher adoption and more contributions. We already have a couple of real-world “experiments” inside OCA itself:
- edi-framework
- queue_job
Both were licensed under LGPL rather than AGPL, and yet they did not attract significantly more contributors or maintainers compared to their AGPL counterparts. If anything, the contributor base has remained relatively small and fixed over the years. This suggests that the license alone is not the determining factor for contributions — other aspects like module complexity, required expertise, or the integrators’ business model also play a huge role.
So the licensing impact turns out to be limited (as our current examples suggest).
For me, it would be more relevant to study why communities like "Spanish Odoo Association" are able to attract so many supporters. They have a similar message, but they have a different strategy that allows to engage most of EE companies. Maybe these people are not making PRs, but at least they make a monetary effort that helps contributors.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:22, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Raphael,
as always very detailed and very insightful thoughts. Honestly, i can't add much value here than just saying you are right with all you said in my opinion. The 20/80 relation for LGPL/AGPL sounds quite reasonable (even if Pareto edges almost always apply).
I'll take the fear / discomfort of Pedro (and Enric) very reasonable, so instead of doing to much to fast, I would suggest to start with a controlled experiment (that even Pedro and Enric would be willing to agree to).
The experiment could look like as follows:
Take a small, but prominent baseline or infrastructure module that we know or assume many people use (even many in illegal ways (just like Tom pointed out) as of today) were a solid majority (of OCA members) and the whole responsible PSC believes would be better if it were licensed under LGPL (or at least has no objections). Lets the responsible owners induce the license change from AGPL to LGPL, advertise this change, make an effort to publish and post about the module, the change and its useful usage, encourage to actively contribute...
and than measure diversity, total amount, quality of contributions, speed of migrations etc. for that very module over a longer period of time (+/- 1 year) and compare it with the AGPL population of similarly reasonable baseline and infrastructure moduls licensed under AGPL.
That way we can easily test hypothesis without taking much risk. If the most supported hypothesis (i.e. some few baseline / infra modules LGPL, 80% business logic modules AGPL -> induces more adoption / contribution) we should see first supporting data from that experiment.
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 17:23 schrieb Raphaël Valyi:
Hello, I think I need to share how I see the big picture.
But first, let me exemplify again with an Odoo market I know very well. You may know that OCA/l10-brazil is the most active OCA repo (14k commits, 4000+ PRs, 150k lines of code, 70 contributors). Not because Brazil is an ERP eldorado but exactly because it is often pointed as the hardest ERP market (you need 200+ tax fields on an invoice line, a company doesn't use all of them but certainly some 60-80, a diversity of 80% companies use may be 180 of them. Same thing e-invoicing has 800 fiscal fields and is over SOAP...).Well there are now 50 official Odoo partners in Brazil, I'm pretty solid, the large majority is a scam of disposable noobs (half life = 1.5 year) who believed it was just about reselling Odoo EE. The vast majority just fail their projects like lemmings (they call us later) as soon as they venture outside of CRM or project management. As I follow the Github notifications I can guarantee you these 50 partners never contributed a SINGLE PR to the OCA. In fact it seems only people unable to do a line of code or use Google to get an overlook would partner. So the selection is pretty inverted (Dunning Krueger)... Instead, aside from Akretion, you now have Escodoo and Engenere who are serious people, CE only, and contributing many PRs to the OCA (outside of OCA/l10-brazil as well). But when I read this from Quartile https://www.quartile.co/en_US/blog/odoo-bits-pieces-1/essential-criteria-for-selecting-your-odoo-partner-as-an-end-user-company-120 let's say it matches my experience.
I also know the French market very well as I pretty much started it 15 years ago (remember openerp.com used the open source ERP whilepaper I wrote at Smile on their frontpage for some 3 years). And I can tell you the quality of the official partner network dropped a lot. 10 years ago they were a well intentioned elite (before Odoo turned it into a "market for lemon", and now, aside from a few exceptions they are mostly a scam, mediocre at best. Less than 5% of these French partners contribute PRs to the OCA on a yearly basis...
Overall, I feel Odoo is doing an unassumed transition from an innovative customizable ERP framework to a SaaS product. In fact they grew a bubble since the start. Since they had to rival with the $ 20 millions inflated Openbravo bubble, continuing with their 10x exaggerated SaaS business model from 2010 for Sofinnova (Fabien shared it with me, as the 2nd partner on the American continent, I helped convince Sofinnova, I protested to Fabien it was inflated but kept quiet as he suggested). Then came the "sorrySAP" crap in 2013, the invention of the millions of happy users worldwide, the $ 500 millions secondary market investments...
Odoo themselves raised little money (on the primary market), less than $ 15 millions I think. In fact, since the start that is the partner network who fueled the growth. Then Odoo "pivoted" and dumped the "stupid partners who believed in that free software concept", made all the impossible early cases possible, did a crazy R&D... Remember that the 1st TinyERP web client didn't come from TinyERP themselves but was a 3rd party contribution (by Axelor)...In a way Odoo externalized the cost of the bubble to its partner network: "sign your project with the latest noob Gold partner who paid for its status and it will be like you will be doing your project with an Acsone or Akretion engineer with 10+ years of Odoo experience". Pretty much what they sold before Odoo EE was a product in itself...
It worked for a while. It grew in quantity while dropping in quality. This is exactly what is called a "market for lemon" with a quality converging to zero as it was shown by Nobel laureate George AkerlofAt the same time Odoo has been improving its product a lot that is very True. Odoo is now quite well coded and is even pretty solid.
Finally, I think Odoo is in the middle of a transition: It is very likely Odoo Enterprise succeeds as a limited SaaS product for micro-companies (like Salesforce, Netsuite). Success will obviously depend on the country. And I think it's quite nice if they meet this success while funding the Odoo CE core under the LGPL license. Much like Basecamp or later Shopify funded the Rails framework.
What I find very "questionable" in fact is that they use the money from these partners they are fooling and their own customers to fund their transition toward an unassumed double agenda of a SaaS ERP for micro-companies. Indeed, Odoo will never assume the average quality of its partner network is crashing to zero.
But this is my vision: yes the partner network will stick to a very low quality for years and years (read again the implacable mechanics of the Market for Lemon) to come and an Odoo Enterprise code and license which is not designed for customizations or extensions but solely to protect the Odoo own IP.And no, I don't see a bright future for this ecosystem of EE partners so that's why I suggest the OCA don't fool itself too much into trying to accommodate with the Odoo SA business roadmap.
And finally, while I said all this, I do share the concern that AGPL is a bit business unfriendly and I do agree we need some LGPL in the OCA to make it easy for companies using Odoo+OCA to protect some of their IP.What is a good mileage? I don't know, maybe 20% LGPL and 80% AGPL would be nice.
@Tom:
About dual licensing again: it should be an opt-in option for the module authors but not forced otherwise you are simply hijacking the AGPL projection the modules authors might expect.And also, the OCA will never be able to check if some business is using a valid LGPL exception module they purchased from the OCA. This simple fact would make it possible the AGPL would be violated massively meanwhile.
Thank you if you read it through ;-)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:57 PM Stéphane Bidoul <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Pedro,
Please don't assert things you can't possibly know about how other companies operate and why.
Best,
-Stéphane
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:32 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
So you have provided the perfect example for confirming the hypothesis that going LGPL, the number of contributions will be reduced: how can it be that Tecnativa, having only 10 persons, contributes 4x more than companies like Camptocamp/Acsone, that have 40/50 persons?
They develop on top of enterprise modules, which they can't share, so they don't contribute to OCA.
They develop more private things, as they are allowed due to the license being LGPL, so they don't contribute back to OCA.
And again, remember the big vendor lock-in you are imposing on your customers installing enterprise modules, being the vendor Odoo S.A., not you. And even not advertising that to your customers (by ignorance or complacency). That's the big win of Odoo doing that the conversation doesn't turn around this.
Regards._______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Raphaël ValyiFounder and consultant
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Graeme Gellatly - 12:30 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Community Contribution Statistics
If I may also share something from the perspective of a "new" board member who spent now a year.
We started out this year with a feeling of urgency to make changes, and some good plans.
But, it seemed to me like the whole idea of the "Board" was conceived in a time where it was that Board who not only decided, but also executed those things that were deemed necessary to do. Whereas the rest of OCA basically did however they pleased in the anarchy (or, if you will, PSC-herded meritocracy) of Github.
Now, we are in a time where the OCA is facing complex problems and big tasks.
For complex problems, finding first consensus between 8 people with each their opinions and limited time to discuss, is already difficult, let alone that it's then necessary to get all the stakeholders on board also, for which the only official arenas are this monstrosity of a mailing list and the yearly event.
For big tasks, executors are needed, and there the tools currently are: RFQ's, some paid employees, volunteer workgroups, and enthusiastic individuals.
I don't think the solution is to be found in having new or more board members - I think the current board members should be wise enough, but:
1. They should not be the ones that make the big decisions, and neither should this mailinglist be - we need to make better use of the AGA or of delegate meetings, in order to make the tough calls with all stakeholders present. Then the Board has a clear mandate and mission.
2. They should be surrounded by enough people that can execute things, because the wiser they are (and you want Wise Men in your board), the less time they will have
3. They should not be such a large group. If you have less people, but each with a bit more time and energy available to respond quickly to pressing issues, it is easier to act.
So I think it's not about finding new Board members per se, although having like 2 new people with new energy is obviously nice; I think it's rather about having a lean, dedicated Board, a good decisionmaking structure, and all other work coordinated via workgroups and PSC teams.
In which case I'll personally also gladly step away from the Board, because I can make myself useful in the WG teams that I like, the PSC teams of the modules I like, and I can give my opinion and vote in an assembly, to proposals prepared partly by the Board and partly by stakeholding members themselves.
The above is just my observation/opinion. But I thought I'd share because it's distinctly different from "We need new Board members". If I am going to try and enthusiate people at the OCA days to become a volunteer, I'd rather try to get them to join a WG.
-Tom
12 sep. 2025 23:02:48 Enric Tobella Alomar <notifications@odoo-community.org>:
Hi,
Thanks a lot for sharing. I fully understand what you mean. I have been in the board and it is not easy. We both know that. It is quite easy to complain from the other side on the work done by the board, but we can be clear on one thing, you are doing a great job there and you all try to keep the OCA running. The same happens from the contributors, but from another perspective.
I also agree that the key is to ensure renewal by motivating more people to step forward. There have been years with several candidates and years with a small set of new possible board members, however. It is not easy to find people interested on the job.
For me, the point was never to accuse anyone of holding on to a seat (and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression). What matters is that we create space for fresh perspectives while also valuing the commitment of experienced members. Both are essential for a healthy balance. It is hard to find it, but we should do it for the sake of the OCA.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:47, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Enric,
I honestly think that people running for the board of the OCA really want to devote a good junk of their time "to make Odoo mightier together" and help us all to succeed what we belive is our joint dreams instead of taking and keeping prestigous role just because.
Unfortunately many context factors don't render that pursue (i.e. being impactful AND successful on the Board) easy. If we have enough volontueers this year running and forming a new board, maybe you include again, with a really tough agenda and problems already on the line or insight (among as trivial stuff as financially sustain the OCA), i am happy to devote my OCA time from a back seat and let others do this job, not being indirectly accused for taking one of the precious seats again.
At least i would not have to take care anymore about things i DO NOT love nearly as much as contributing real community value to an overall healthy and motivated community (that was my initial motivation to run for the board).
The reality is, most of the work on the board has not been too much fun (especially lately) and am happy to hand things over to new people. Remember i personally tried to convince 5-6 newbies for the board last year out of which 1 (namely Ivan) was running and has been elected. Ivan did a great job and was a great value to the team so far. Same was Tom. So in order to move things into that direction we may organize a little on stage "running for the board" campaign next week in which volunteers can present themselfes and their agendas to the members around. What do you think ?
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 18:57 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Tom,
Sadly, I am unable to come this year for some personal reasons. I am sure that we can make an online meeting if you are interested.
Regarding the board, this has been a recurring topic in the community. What strikes me as odd is that while renewal is regularly encouraged, most former board members still run for re-election. In some cases, even when there were enough new candidates to fill the seats, the former members were all re-elected.
If we don’t intentionally make space for new candidates, it will be difficult to bring in fresh perspectives. I don’t have a definitive solution, but I believe it’s worth reflecting on how we can better encourage and support renewal.
I know that there is some new faces on the board (like you this year). I hope this trend continues.
Kind regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 16:52, Tom Blauwendraat (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
On 8/22/25 15:32, Enric Tobella Alomar wrote: > On the Board, I share your concern. At my first OCA Days (2018 or > 2019), the Board asked for proposals to completely renew itself. Since > then, few members have stepped aside, but some remain there. Maybe, at > some point, stepping aside could help bring new perspectives. What we have tried to do here in the past year is to form Workgroups, with the goal of diverting the actual work there. Nobody wants to be a Board member, but there are a lot more people who want to contribute to a small part that they feel enthousiastic about. This idea could be built upon. > Personally, I would like to see a mandate limit on the Board, PSC > formal election definition and a clear reflection of how each role is > decided, but it is my personal opinion. Will you be at the OCA days to join discussions on how to come from opinions to actual proposals that can be implemented?
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
by Tom Blauwendraat - 12:11 - 13 Sep 2025 -
Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
Sure,If I remember properly, we have 3 repositories that are mainly LGPL: DMS, EDI-Framework and Queue JobI will take EDI-Framework as a base as it has several modules in the repo. It has 17 modules in 18 and it as been in its repo for 5 versions for a total of 197 PRs. this makes an average of 39 PRs for each version. Also, it has 49 contributorsOn the other hand I will use helpdesk as it has a similar number of modules in 18 (17) and it is completly AGPL. It has been there for 9 versions for a total of 686 PRs, that makes an average of 76 PRs for version with a total of 120 contributorsIt is true that EDI-Framework has some special cases like the complexity of components and so on, but with similar sizes in number of modules we can see quite a difference in number of contributors and PRs done.I know that correlation doesn’t imply causation (spurious relationships are one of the first fun lessons in statistics), but in my view, this makes it quite clear that licensing alone is not the decisive factor in how contributors engage with a project.Kind regardsEl vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:57, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:Hi Enric,
ok, i obviously didn't recall this fact. In order to make this comparison stable, we should find comparable siblings of those to by any stable internal complexity measure (maybe McCabe or Halstead is enough for now) and than compare the contributions (again by stable measures) over time
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 21:41 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Frederik,
Thanks for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
I agree with the idea of experimenting before making real changes, but I think we need to be cautious with the assumption that moving from AGPL to LGPL automatically results in higher adoption and more contributions. We already have a couple of real-world “experiments” inside OCA itself:
- edi-framework
- queue_job
Both were licensed under LGPL rather than AGPL, and yet they did not attract significantly more contributors or maintainers compared to their AGPL counterparts. If anything, the contributor base has remained relatively small and fixed over the years. This suggests that the license alone is not the determining factor for contributions — other aspects like module complexity, required expertise, or the integrators’ business model also play a huge role.
So the licensing impact turns out to be limited (as our current examples suggest).
For me, it would be more relevant to study why communities like "Spanish Odoo Association" are able to attract so many supporters. They have a similar message, but they have a different strategy that allows to engage most of EE companies. Maybe these people are not making PRs, but at least they make a monetary effort that helps contributors.
Best regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:22, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
Hi Raphael,
as always very detailed and very insightful thoughts. Honestly, i can't add much value here than just saying you are right with all you said in my opinion. The 20/80 relation for LGPL/AGPL sounds quite reasonable (even if Pareto edges almost always apply).
I'll take the fear / discomfort of Pedro (and Enric) very reasonable, so instead of doing to much to fast, I would suggest to start with a controlled experiment (that even Pedro and Enric would be willing to agree to).
The experiment could look like as follows:
Take a small, but prominent baseline or infrastructure module that we know or assume many people use (even many in illegal ways (just like Tom pointed out) as of today) were a solid majority (of OCA members) and the whole responsible PSC believes would be better if it were licensed under LGPL (or at least has no objections). Lets the responsible owners induce the license change from AGPL to LGPL, advertise this change, make an effort to publish and post about the module, the change and its useful usage, encourage to actively contribute...
and than measure diversity, total amount, quality of contributions, speed of migrations etc. for that very module over a longer period of time (+/- 1 year) and compare it with the AGPL population of similarly reasonable baseline and infrastructure moduls licensed under AGPL.
That way we can easily test hypothesis without taking much risk. If the most supported hypothesis (i.e. some few baseline / infra modules LGPL, 80% business logic modules AGPL -> induces more adoption / contribution) we should see first supporting data from that experiment.
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 17:23 schrieb Raphaël Valyi:
Hello, I think I need to share how I see the big picture.
But first, let me exemplify again with an Odoo market I know very well. You may know that OCA/l10-brazil is the most active OCA repo (14k commits, 4000+ PRs, 150k lines of code, 70 contributors). Not because Brazil is an ERP eldorado but exactly because it is often pointed as the hardest ERP market (you need 200+ tax fields on an invoice line, a company doesn't use all of them but certainly some 60-80, a diversity of 80% companies use may be 180 of them. Same thing e-invoicing has 800 fiscal fields and is over SOAP...).Well there are now 50 official Odoo partners in Brazil, I'm pretty solid, the large majority is a scam of disposable noobs (half life = 1.5 year) who believed it was just about reselling Odoo EE. The vast majority just fail their projects like lemmings (they call us later) as soon as they venture outside of CRM or project management. As I follow the Github notifications I can guarantee you these 50 partners never contributed a SINGLE PR to the OCA. In fact it seems only people unable to do a line of code or use Google to get an overlook would partner. So the selection is pretty inverted (Dunning Krueger)... Instead, aside from Akretion, you now have Escodoo and Engenere who are serious people, CE only, and contributing many PRs to the OCA (outside of OCA/l10-brazil as well). But when I read this from Quartile https://www.quartile.co/en_US/blog/odoo-bits-pieces-1/essential-criteria-for-selecting-your-odoo-partner-as-an-end-user-company-120 let's say it matches my experience.
I also know the French market very well as I pretty much started it 15 years ago (remember openerp.com used the open source ERP whilepaper I wrote at Smile on their frontpage for some 3 years). And I can tell you the quality of the official partner network dropped a lot. 10 years ago they were a well intentioned elite (before Odoo turned it into a "market for lemon", and now, aside from a few exceptions they are mostly a scam, mediocre at best. Less than 5% of these French partners contribute PRs to the OCA on a yearly basis...
Overall, I feel Odoo is doing an unassumed transition from an innovative customizable ERP framework to a SaaS product. In fact they grew a bubble since the start. Since they had to rival with the $ 20 millions inflated Openbravo bubble, continuing with their 10x exaggerated SaaS business model from 2010 for Sofinnova (Fabien shared it with me, as the 2nd partner on the American continent, I helped convince Sofinnova, I protested to Fabien it was inflated but kept quiet as he suggested). Then came the "sorrySAP" crap in 2013, the invention of the millions of happy users worldwide, the $ 500 millions secondary market investments...
Odoo themselves raised little money (on the primary market), less than $ 15 millions I think. In fact, since the start that is the partner network who fueled the growth. Then Odoo "pivoted" and dumped the "stupid partners who believed in that free software concept", made all the impossible early cases possible, did a crazy R&D... Remember that the 1st TinyERP web client didn't come from TinyERP themselves but was a 3rd party contribution (by Axelor)...In a way Odoo externalized the cost of the bubble to its partner network: "sign your project with the latest noob Gold partner who paid for its status and it will be like you will be doing your project with an Acsone or Akretion engineer with 10+ years of Odoo experience". Pretty much what they sold before Odoo EE was a product in itself...
It worked for a while. It grew in quantity while dropping in quality. This is exactly what is called a "market for lemon" with a quality converging to zero as it was shown by Nobel laureate George AkerlofAt the same time Odoo has been improving its product a lot that is very True. Odoo is now quite well coded and is even pretty solid.
Finally, I think Odoo is in the middle of a transition: It is very likely Odoo Enterprise succeeds as a limited SaaS product for micro-companies (like Salesforce, Netsuite). Success will obviously depend on the country. And I think it's quite nice if they meet this success while funding the Odoo CE core under the LGPL license. Much like Basecamp or later Shopify funded the Rails framework.
What I find very "questionable" in fact is that they use the money from these partners they are fooling and their own customers to fund their transition toward an unassumed double agenda of a SaaS ERP for micro-companies. Indeed, Odoo will never assume the average quality of its partner network is crashing to zero.
But this is my vision: yes the partner network will stick to a very low quality for years and years (read again the implacable mechanics of the Market for Lemon) to come and an Odoo Enterprise code and license which is not designed for customizations or extensions but solely to protect the Odoo own IP.And no, I don't see a bright future for this ecosystem of EE partners so that's why I suggest the OCA don't fool itself too much into trying to accommodate with the Odoo SA business roadmap.
And finally, while I said all this, I do share the concern that AGPL is a bit business unfriendly and I do agree we need some LGPL in the OCA to make it easy for companies using Odoo+OCA to protect some of their IP.What is a good mileage? I don't know, maybe 20% LGPL and 80% AGPL would be nice.
@Tom:
About dual licensing again: it should be an opt-in option for the module authors but not forced otherwise you are simply hijacking the AGPL projection the modules authors might expect.And also, the OCA will never be able to check if some business is using a valid LGPL exception module they purchased from the OCA. This simple fact would make it possible the AGPL would be violated massively meanwhile.
Thank you if you read it through ;-)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:57 PM Stéphane Bidoul <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
Pedro,
Please don't assert things you can't possibly know about how other companies operate and why.
Best,
-Stéphane
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 3:32 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
So you have provided the perfect example for confirming the hypothesis that going LGPL, the number of contributions will be reduced: how can it be that Tecnativa, having only 10 persons, contributes 4x more than companies like Camptocamp/Acsone, that have 40/50 persons?
They develop on top of enterprise modules, which they can't share, so they don't contribute to OCA.
They develop more private things, as they are allowed due to the license being LGPL, so they don't contribute back to OCA.
And again, remember the big vendor lock-in you are imposing on your customers installing enterprise modules, being the vendor Odoo S.A., not you. And even not advertising that to your customers (by ignorance or complacency). That's the big win of Odoo doing that the conversation doesn't turn around this.
Regards._______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Raphaël ValyiFounder and consultant
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
by Enric Tobella Alomar - 11:21 - 12 Sep 2025 -
Re: Community Contribution Statistics
Hi,
Thanks a lot for sharing. I fully understand what you mean. I have been in the board and it is not easy. We both know that. It is quite easy to complain from the other side on the work done by the board, but we can be clear on one thing, you are doing a great job there and you all try to keep the OCA running. The same happens from the contributors, but from another perspective.
I also agree that the key is to ensure renewal by motivating more people to step forward. There have been years with several candidates and years with a small set of new possible board members, however. It is not easy to find people interested on the job.
For me, the point was never to accuse anyone of holding on to a seat (and I’m sorry if I gave you that impression). What matters is that we create space for fresh perspectives while also valuing the commitment of experienced members. Both are essential for a healthy balance. It is hard to find it, but we should do it for the sake of the OCA.
Best regards,El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 21:47, Frederik Kramer (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:Hi Enric,
I honestly think that people running for the board of the OCA really want to devote a good junk of their time "to make Odoo mightier together" and help us all to succeed what we belive is our joint dreams instead of taking and keeping prestigous role just because.
Unfortunately many context factors don't render that pursue (i.e. being impactful AND successful on the Board) easy. If we have enough volontueers this year running and forming a new board, maybe you include again, with a really tough agenda and problems already on the line or insight (among as trivial stuff as financially sustain the OCA), i am happy to devote my OCA time from a back seat and let others do this job, not being indirectly accused for taking one of the precious seats again.
At least i would not have to take care anymore about things i DO NOT love nearly as much as contributing real community value to an overall healthy and motivated community (that was my initial motivation to run for the board).
The reality is, most of the work on the board has not been too much fun (especially lately) and am happy to hand things over to new people. Remember i personally tried to convince 5-6 newbies for the board last year out of which 1 (namely Ivan) was running and has been elected. Ivan did a great job and was a great value to the team so far. Same was Tom. So in order to move things into that direction we may organize a little on stage "running for the board" campaign next week in which volunteers can present themselfes and their agendas to the members around. What do you think ?
Best Frederik
Am 12.09.25 um 18:57 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:
Hi Tom,
Sadly, I am unable to come this year for some personal reasons. I am sure that we can make an online meeting if you are interested.
Regarding the board, this has been a recurring topic in the community. What strikes me as odd is that while renewal is regularly encouraged, most former board members still run for re-election. In some cases, even when there were enough new candidates to fill the seats, the former members were all re-elected.
If we don’t intentionally make space for new candidates, it will be difficult to bring in fresh perspectives. I don’t have a definitive solution, but I believe it’s worth reflecting on how we can better encourage and support renewal.
I know that there is some new faces on the board (like you this year). I hope this trend continues.
Kind regards,
El vie, 12 sept 2025 a las 16:52, Tom Blauwendraat (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
On 8/22/25 15:32, Enric Tobella Alomar wrote: > On the Board, I share your concern. At my first OCA Days (2018 or > 2019), the Board asked for proposals to completely renew itself. Since > then, few members have stepped aside, but some remain there. Maybe, at > some point, stepping aside could help bring new perspectives. What we have tried to do here in the past year is to form Workgroups, with the goal of diverting the actual work there. Nobody wants to be a Board member, but there are a lot more people who want to contribute to a small part that they feel enthousiastic about. This idea could be built upon. > Personally, I would like to see a mandate limit on the Board, PSC > formal election definition and a clear reflection of how each role is > decided, but it is my personal opinion. Will you be at the OCA days to join discussions on how to come from opinions to actual proposals that can be implemented?
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
-- Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer Geschäftsführer initOS GmbH Innungsstraße 7 21244 Buchholz i.d.N. Tel: +49 (0) 4181 13503 12 Fax: +49 (0) 4181 13503 10 Mobil: +49 (0) 179 3901819 Email: frederik.kramer@initos.com Internet: www.initos.com Geschäftsführung: Dr.-Ing. Frederik Kramer & Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Torsten Francke Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buchholz i.d.N. Amtsgericht Tostedt, HRB 205226 USt-IdNr.: DE815580155 Steuer-Nr: 15/200/53247
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--Enric Tobella AlomarCEO & Founder
by Enric Tobella Alomar - 11:01 - 12 Sep 2025
