Contributors

Hello Fred,

Thanks for your comments.

I agree that in practice, many enterprise legal teams take a very cautious view, which can discourage the use of AGPL modules regardless of the actual legal analysis. However, as changing the license to LGPL is not an option for our contributions (at least for me), we believe a more constructive way forward is twofold:

1. Customer and integrator education.
   By providing clear explanations of the OCA’s interpretation (when AGPL obligations apply and when coexistence is acceptable), we can help clients understand the boundaries and make informed decisions rather than rejecting AGPL code by default. Improving the communication in this topic in OCA website could help a lot.

2. Community-level legal guidance.
   Rather than each integrator seeking fragmented advice, it would be more effective if the OCA coordinated with recognized open source licensing experts to produce a global legal statement. Such a document could clarify the reasoning behind OCA’s position and provide integrators with an authoritative reference point to present to enterprise clients.

This approach could help reduce concerns for customers, avoid unnecessary dilution of AGPL contributions, and give the community a unified, credible position without forcing a change in licensing, which shouldn't be an option IMO.

You should remember that by using AGPL, we are empowering the community and forcing external entities to collaborate. If we leave LGPL, new developments will not be inside the OCA and we will loose traction and power. That is not an option for me.

Best regards,

Hi Enric, hi vincent,

thanks Enric to write the OCA stance in such clarity. As we are both members of the community and therefore often involved in this debate I personally tend to agree on that very stance. However, as an integrator often face with customer demand i can also firmly report that this IS an issue among synidicus laywers in many commercial enterprises in many cases leading to the dismissal of all AGPL licenced code, hence dilluting potential contribution to its maintainance.

As the OCA - through the CLA / ICLA process - "technically" has all rights to defend its legal "interpretation" i thould theoretically be enough to trust (even larger commercial entities) that it will ultimately hold true if somebody litigates a lawsuite but practice imho looks quite different from theory on that matter.

Best Frederik

Am 08.09.25 um 11:22 schrieb Enric Tobella Alomar:

Hello Vincent,

From a legal standpoint, the issue centers on whether proprietary modules that are installed on the same Odoo instance as AGPL-licensed modules are to be considered derivative works of those AGPL modules. The AGPL license imposes its obligations (notably source code disclosure under AGPL terms) only when a work is derivative or based upon the AGPL-licensed code.

The OCA’s position—that AGPL and proprietary modules can coexist on the same instance provided there is no dependency relationship—is grounded in the following reasoning:

1. Modularity and independence.
   An Odoo module is legally treated as a separate work. If a proprietary module does not include, link to, or depend on an AGPL module, it is not derivative, and the AGPL obligations are not triggered. Simply running them side by side in the same Odoo instance does not in itself create a derivative work. It is like having two processes, one AGPL and one private in your computer.

2. Dependencies as the critical factor.
   If a proprietary module declares a dependency (via the depends key in the manifest) on an AGPL module, or reuses AGPL code, then it would be considered derivative and therefore must also be licensed under the AGPL. In contrast, if dependencies are only on LGPL modules (as is the case with the Odoo core and most OCA libraries), coexistence is legally permissible.

3. Distinction with Odoo SA’s position.
   The 2015 Odoo SA statement reflects a more restrictive view, primarily aimed at encouraging module authors to relicense under LGPL. That stance is a policy choice rather than a strict reading of the AGPL. The legal baseline under copyright law is that AGPL requirements are triggered only by derivation, not by mere colocation on the same server.

In short: the AGPL license does not prohibit running AGPL and proprietary modules on the same instance, provided the proprietary modules do not depend on or incorporate AGPL code. This is the legal basis for the OCA FAQ.

If the propietary modules doesn't rely on the AGPL module, it shouldn't be a problem, as they can exist independently, so the private is not derivative of the AGPL and they can coexist.

Kind regards,

El lun, 8 sept 2025 a las 11:07, Vincent Hatakeyama (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:

I should have pointed out that I’m starting to believe my CEO is right.

Concerning professionnel legal advice, he told me that he never find out someone capable of replying to licence questions concerning open source.

I’m concerned, as the head of the department, of not doing something correctly and was curious about why it is written on the OCA website something that looks incorrect.

Regards,

--

Vincent Hatakeyama Directeur du pôle développement " Orbeet +33 1 83 62 72 88 vincent.hatakeyama@orbeet.io 27, boulevard Saint-Martin 75003 Paris https://orbeet.io

_______________________________________________
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 Alomar

CEO & Founder

www.dixmit.com

_______________________________________________
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