MeetingExtension5Nov08
Nov 05 14:14:53 * Kai_ sets mode +m #adempiere-team
Nov 05 14:15:06 * Kai_ gives voice to CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:15:20 <CarlosRuiz> OK - I have some ideas to start - maybe trying to answer these questions can help:
Nov 05 14:15:20 <CarlosRuiz> - what is an extension?
Nov 05 14:15:20 <CarlosRuiz> - do we want to encourage extensions? or do we want everything goes to core?
Nov 05 14:15:20 <CarlosRuiz> - if we would want to encourage extensions - what must be the proper way on Adempiere?
Nov 05 14:15:20 <CarlosRuiz> - what must be the behavior (open source behavior I suppose) of extensions?
Nov 05 14:15:21 <CarlosRuiz> - what about trademarks in extensions? conditions? risk management?
Nov 05 14:15:23 <CarlosRuiz> I think we can try to discuss one at a time - to get first the fundamental, and then go deep in the details.
Nov 05 14:16:01 <CarlosRuiz> does somebody wants to try defining the first?
Nov 05 14:16:30 * Kai_ gives voice to Fred___
Nov 05 14:16:49 <Fred___> My definition of extension would be: Something that is built on top
Nov 05 14:16:55 <Fred___> and does not modify the core
Nov 05 14:17:04 <Fred___> am done
Nov 05 14:17:48 <Kai_> No one raised hands... :-)
Nov 05 14:18:00 * Kai_ gives voice to karsten-thiemann
Nov 05 14:18:24 <karsten-thiemann> the problem I see with this definition is that we don't have a really extension friendly core
Nov 05 14:18:54 <karsten-thiemann> sometimes you need to change/enhance the core to build new funcitionality
Nov 05 14:18:58 <karsten-thiemann> .
Nov 05 14:19:04 * Kai_ gives voice to Bahman
Nov 05 14:19:18 <Bahman> Just wanted to say as karsten-thiemann did...
Nov 05 14:19:30 <Bahman> IMO, extension is a vertical...
Nov 05 14:19:46 <Bahman> which uses services from lower levels...
Nov 05 14:20:09 <Bahman> While we can't define levels or services that core can provide to verticals...
Nov 05 14:20:21 <Bahman> we have difficulty defining extensions...
Nov 05 14:20:30 <Bahman> A clear expample is POStertia...
Nov 05 14:20:37 <Bahman> While POS is a vertical in nature...
Nov 05 14:20:46 <Bahman> they made modifications to core....
Nov 05 14:20:48 <Bahman> Over.
Nov 05 14:21:05 <Kai_> Sorry: But I would like to change something
Nov 05 14:21:22 <Kai_> I will open the channel for all now. We keep it with the "raising"
Nov 05 14:21:32 <Kai_> But I just post the name who is next
Nov 05 14:21:41 <Kai_> This is easier for me. ;-)
Nov 05 14:22:07 <CarlosRuiz> you rule
Nov 05 14:22:14 <Kai_> Yeah...
Nov 05 14:22:31 <karsten-thiemann> hmm - and who is next?
Nov 05 14:22:41 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:22:51 <CarlosRuiz> I like definition from Fred - I just suppose that we have a big problem in Adempiere - as core is mixed kernel + business functionality
Nov 05 14:22:51 <CarlosRuiz> So, I would think to define core as the kernel - and extension must just add business functionality without touching kernel
Nov 05 14:22:51 <CarlosRuiz> Meanwhile we don't have a clear separation between kernel and business - we can have a defined separation.
Nov 05 14:22:51 <CarlosRuiz> Extensions must not change kernel - that must be changed in adempiere core.
Nov 05 14:22:52 <CarlosRuiz> Extensions could add business functionality using extension ModelValidator, etc.
Nov 05 14:22:54 <CarlosRuiz> We'll find many points where Adempiere is not friendly extensions - but at least the light-definition can help us to look and improve those points.
Nov 05 14:23:09 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:23:28 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 14:23:54 <crooney> what puzzled me about the idea of extension in an open source world was...
Nov 05 14:24:05 <crooney> it seem to be as a module...
Nov 05 14:24:39 <crooney> in the close source world you pay for each module but in the open source world what does it matter if all is included or not
Nov 05 14:24:42 <crooney> .
Nov 05 14:24:56 <Kai_> ar_howard
Nov 05 14:25:58 * Kai_ gives voice to ar_howard
Nov 05 14:26:02 <ar_howard> Question - do people think core = code, or code + dictionary - are we all thinking the same thing?
Nov 05 14:26:07 * Kai_ gives voice to banym
Nov 05 14:26:14 * Kai_ gives voice to dgvr
Nov 05 14:26:18 * Kai_ gives voice to dladwig
Nov 05 14:26:23 * Kai_ gives voice to hengsin
Nov 05 14:26:30 * Kai_ gives voice to jsSolutions
Nov 05 14:26:33 * Kai_ gives voice to Junior
Nov 05 14:26:49 <ar_howard> .
Nov 05 14:27:11 <Kai_> OK, another change (we are still trying...)
Nov 05 14:27:45 <Kai_> If someone wants to answer directly to a post, he should wirte just a "!" in this channel
Nov 05 14:27:54 <Kai_> OK?
Nov 05 14:27:59 <dgvr> ok
Nov 05 14:28:17 <Kai_> So then CarlosRuiz for crooney
Nov 05 14:28:27 <CarlosRuiz> Colin - about "what does it matter if all is included or not"
Nov 05 14:28:27 <CarlosRuiz> I think allowing extensions is a way to bring competence - people will compete for the best POS - people will compete for the best subscription-add-on-module, etc.
Nov 05 14:28:27 <CarlosRuiz> Allan - yes - "code + dictionary" - there is a difference between a dictionary table and a business table - same as in code
Nov 05 14:28:33 * Kai_ sets mode -m #adempiere-team
Nov 05 14:28:48 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:29:23 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 14:30:13 <mark_o_> should be joel now?
Nov 05 14:30:15 <hengsin> I like fred definition, i.e build on top and not changing core.
Nov 05 14:31:05 <hengsin> yeap, sometime an extension might replace some code in core but that is usually just a problem in the core rather than changing the definition of an extension
Nov 05 14:31:07 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 14:31:19 <Kai_> banym
Nov 05 14:31:59 <banym> what is when new modul needs new core functionality should this go into core or should it be maintained with the modul?
Nov 05 14:32:00 <banym> .
Nov 05 14:32:07 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 14:32:21 <Kai_> jsSolutions (sorry Carlos!)
Nov 05 14:32:56 <jsSolutions> it's ok, let CR answer dircetly- mine is a separate issue related to Colin post
Nov 05 14:33:06 <Kai_> OK, so CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:33:08 <CarlosRuiz> banym - it should go into core IMHO - extensions changing core (kernel-not-business) in some way are forking
Nov 05 14:33:34 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:33:35 <Bahman> !
Nov 05 14:33:40 <Kai_> Bahman
Nov 05 14:33:59 <Bahman> Wondering what is the exact definition of kernel...
Nov 05 14:34:13 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 14:34:17 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:34:23 <Bahman> Perhaps it'd be good if we first define clearly what is kernel.
Nov 05 14:34:39 <CarlosRuiz> good point Bahman, I would define it as common functionalities, like PO, like window management, etc - none related to business rules ...
Nov 05 14:34:45 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 14:34:53 <CarlosRuiz> business rules in adempiere are mostly related to three modules: inventory, AR/AP, accounting
Nov 05 14:34:58 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:35:01 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 14:36:10 <hengsin> in practise, we can choose to build anything as an extension or directly into core. the tradeoff is a matter of flexibility ( possibility of replacing the entire implementation ) vs optimize integration
Nov 05 14:36:12 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 14:36:43 <Kai_> OK, Joel you had been a victim somehow. Now your turn.
Nov 05 14:36:53 <jsSolutions> thanks Kai!
Nov 05 14:36:55 <jsSolutions> Colin- about "what does it matter if all is included or not"- there are at least 4 POS extensions right now. I don't think we can or should put them all in the trunk. User should have their choice to preference
Nov 05 14:37:06 * Muthah_cell (n=Muthah@41.223.57.74) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 14:37:20 <crooney> !
Nov 05 14:37:47 <banym> !
Nov 05 14:38:16 <Kai_> jsSolutions: done?
Nov 05 14:38:25 <jsSolutions> oh sorry .
Nov 05 14:38:28 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 14:38:29 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 14:38:32 <crooney> :)
Nov 05 14:38:45 <crooney> Joel, yes but they have the choice!
Nov 05 14:38:59 <crooney> all 4 exist together
Nov 05 14:39:30 <crooney> now I know that could mean extra code = extra potential bugs but they have the choice now
Nov 05 14:39:36 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 14:39:40 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 14:39:44 <crooney> also if I can answer Carlos response from earlier
Nov 05 14:39:52 <crooney> well I guess it is somewhat colored by the meaning of open source too
Nov 05 14:40:05 <crooney> for me it's about making software solutions about services. .. implementation, support development training
Nov 05 14:40:05 <crooney> but your proposal sounds like creating a market for modules ... so we are back to software be a product
Nov 05 14:40:11 <crooney> so for me this is a fundamental
Nov 05 14:40:13 <crooney> .
Nov 05 14:40:20 <Kai_> banym
Nov 05 14:41:04 <CarlosRuiz> ! for Colin
Nov 05 14:41:11 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 14:41:47 <banym> jsSolutions, as modules i see no problem for 4 pos next to each other. i core i agree tha'ts not maintainable for long time. but some times community needs to say what is the solution "WE" want to use an maintain if there is no "usergroup"
Nov 05 14:41:52 <banym> .
Nov 05 14:42:02 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 14:42:17 <dgvr> re the definition of "core"
Nov 05 14:42:19 <dgvr> ...
Nov 05 14:42:28 <dgvr> wouldn't the "core" be anything that is common to all implementations of the application
Nov 05 14:42:29 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 14:42:47 * PCGoneLetter (n=a@20.161.23.209.lan.static.cptelecom.net) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 14:43:09 <hengsin> having 4 pos in the core is not practical, the amount of potential conflict will be unmanageable
Nov 05 14:43:11 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 14:43:21 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 14:43:33 <Fred___> I agree with Hengsin
Nov 05 14:43:48 <Fred___> Also to carlos point, sometime
Nov 05 14:43:51 <Fred___> we add new functionality
Nov 05 14:43:55 <Fred___> that is essentail for us
Nov 05 14:44:02 <Fred___> but I think is not needed at all for ERP features
Nov 05 14:44:11 <Fred___> the main incompatibility with Posterita and Adempiere
Nov 05 14:44:14 <Fred___> resides in the database
Nov 05 14:44:24 <Fred___> we add some fields like pin
Nov 05 14:44:28 <Fred___> terminal autolock
Nov 05 14:44:33 <mark_o_> !
Nov 05 14:44:33 <Fred___> money refunded
Nov 05 14:44:46 <Fred___> so I don't know if these should be included or not into core
Nov 05 14:44:52 <Fred___> and from a practical point of view
Nov 05 14:45:07 <Fred___> we will have to get approval for each new addition we think is needed for us
Nov 05 14:45:09 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 14:45:21 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:45:37 <CarlosRuiz> Colin, "so we are back to software be a product"
Nov 05 14:45:37 <CarlosRuiz> not necessarily - in ubuntu you can install sun-java, gcj, etc.
Nov 05 14:45:37 <CarlosRuiz> even you can install both at the same time and point which one do you want to use at some moment (obviouly we're far from that in adempiere) - but you see sun-java and gcj are open source, not necessarily products
Nov 05 14:45:37 <CarlosRuiz> That's what I mean about competence - not necessarily supporting commercial products
Nov 05 14:45:38 <CarlosRuiz> I also agree with Heng Sin about having 4 POS will bring us conflicts - and misunderstandings
Nov 05 14:45:39 <CarlosRuiz> Fred, I agree, it's different to add a PIN to C_BPartner, than adding something to AD_Window
Nov 05 14:45:52 * red1 (n=red1@230.83.48.60.klj04-home.tm.net.my) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 14:45:54 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:46:10 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 14:46:22 <jsSolutions> same thoughts.
Nov 05 14:47:36 <Kai_> We should define a timeout. :-)
Nov 05 14:47:50 <crooney> does mark_o wish to say something?
Nov 05 14:47:55 <mark_o_> yepp ;-)
Nov 05 14:48:04 <Kai_> Yes, but I am not sure if Joel is done.
Nov 05 14:48:11 <Kai_> OK, mark_o_
Nov 05 14:48:14 <mark_o_> thanx
Nov 05 14:48:16 <mark_o_> The view of an ADempiere Implementor Company.
Nov 05 14:48:16 <mark_o_> An extension should allow to develop business logic without
Nov 05 14:48:17 <mark_o_> to ba afraid, to get stopped before getting it into Core/ kernel.
Nov 05 14:48:17 <jsSolutions> yep, put my period .
Nov 05 14:48:22 <mark_o_> It should be maintainable completly encapsulated from core.
Nov 05 14:48:34 <mark_o_> we have release early, release often ...
Nov 05 14:48:55 <mark_o_> but it's sometimes not practicable to develop like this ...
Nov 05 14:49:15 <mark_o_> ant we always spend alot of time thinking about doing things generic ...
Nov 05 14:49:33 <mark_o_> even if we try to develop localizations ...
Nov 05 14:49:59 <mark_o_> encapsulation from core would allow to have less dependencies
Nov 05 14:50:03 <mark_o_> .
Nov 05 14:50:12 <crooney> !
Nov 05 14:50:28 <Kai_> OK, now Bahman wants to say something off topic...
Nov 05 14:50:38 <Bahman> Sorry but house owner is at the door willing to negotiate the new rent amount...
Nov 05 14:50:38 <Bahman> What choice do I have?! :-)
Nov 05 14:50:38 <Bahman> I have to leave but will read the logs.
Nov 05 14:50:38 <Bahman> Over.
Nov 05 14:51:02 <Kai_> OK, crooney
Nov 05 14:51:14 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 14:51:23 <crooney> @ Bahman - Definition of kernel
Nov 05 14:51:29 <crooney> I've said before but will repeat. The power in adempiere is the business functionality not the framework. The framework has made us stuck with 90s client server design & struggling to support more than 2 Dbs
Nov 05 14:51:52 <crooney> if we had a real plugin architecture this might be a different discussion!
Nov 05 14:51:54 <crooney> and
Nov 05 14:51:58 <crooney> @ Fred
Nov 05 14:52:02 <crooney> >we will have to get approval for each new addition
Nov 05 14:52:02 <crooney> Why? You do not need to now?
Nov 05 14:52:02 <crooney> In your case I don't believe the intention is to develop along side your work but was simply to make it easy for those (and I have seen quiet a few) that wanted to try posterita with adempiere but could not manage the technical aspects of doing tha
Nov 05 14:52:11 <mark_o_> !
Nov 05 14:52:12 <crooney> that
Nov 05 14:52:18 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 14:52:27 <crooney> I would have thought was trifon did was beneficial!?
Nov 05 14:52:29 <crooney> .
Nov 05 14:52:47 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 14:52:50 <dgvr> Having multiple competing extensions within AD can lead to "healthy" competition...and a stronger AD overall if the extension survives...
Nov 05 14:52:53 <dgvr> if someone is motivated enought to do so...then why not..and then its open to peer review...
Nov 05 14:53:11 <dgvr> an equally important point is "what type of companies we like here, what type of open-source behavior we expect here"
Nov 05 14:53:30 * muthah has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
Nov 05 14:53:54 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 14:55:17 <Kai_> Please everyone, don't forget your "." line
Nov 05 14:55:24 <dgvr> aha
Nov 05 14:55:33 <dgvr> my apologies
Nov 05 14:55:35 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 14:55:45 <Kai_> mark_o_
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> @colin. Why not framework as kernel? For example, we have made
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> a complete refactoring of InOutGenerate withr further Enhancements
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> for out Customers here in Germany. We would like
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> to suggest it for trunk/core, but we cannot ber sure that the Community
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> in other parts of the world would want to have it. I believe
Nov 05 14:55:55 <mark_o_> InOutGenerate would be part of core in your mind
Nov 05 14:56:00 <mark_o_> ...
Nov 05 14:56:14 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 14:56:21 <mark_o_> if InOutGenerate could be prt of an extension ...
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> Fred said ">we will have to get approval for each new addition"
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> Colin said "Why? You do not need to now?"
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> I would say -> Yes, it's needed.
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> What if Posterita POS adds C_BPartner.PIN, and openxpertya POS adds C_BPartner.CashKEY - meaning the same thing.
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> That's a big problem we'll have integrating everything - duplicated fields and tables, I suppose it will raise duplicated code also, etc.
Nov 05 14:56:21 <CarlosRuiz> What I suppose is (as normal in open source) from time to time an extension is so brilliant over the rest of competence - that maybe will be wanted to bring into core. We can set up a proper process to do that also.
Nov 05 14:56:39 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 14:56:55 <CarlosRuiz> sorry - I didn't notice mark hasn't finished :-(
Nov 05 14:57:05 <mark_o_> no prob ;-)
Nov 05 14:57:11 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 14:57:21 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 14:57:38 <jsSolutions> same as CR again :)
Nov 05 14:57:40 <jsSolutions> >we will have to get approval for each new addition If there are four competing POS in the core, each might implement PIN differently. That becomes almost impossible for the user to configure. It's not as much a problem if the extensions are independent. But a big problem if they are all merged into trunk
Nov 05 14:57:48 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 14:57:55 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 14:57:56 <mark_o_> !
Nov 05 14:58:09 <Fred___> No we don't need to ask for permission, we just add it in our little posterita project. :)
Nov 05 14:58:10 <Fred___> As I said even some of the database modification we do internally,
Nov 05 14:58:12 <Fred___> we are not agreeing with ourselves.
Nov 05 14:58:13 <Fred___> How many columns will we add in Adempiere tables?
Nov 05 14:58:15 <Fred___> I never said what trifon did was bad. In fact it's great and it is welcomed. It's more a matter of technicality. But you will have to consider of what's going to happen in the future. A lot of issues will be arise not now, but later.
Nov 05 14:58:19 <Fred___> Those who are having problems, are those using Adempiere, then are trying to add posterita. If they just use our Posterita.zip they don't have any problems.
Nov 05 14:58:24 <Fred___> If people want to use Posterita they can just download directly from our project. Unfortunately we don't have something easy right now to migrate their data, that's because we didn't invest in it. But it's not hard technically. Because we are doing that already, and everything is done with a fresh Adempiere.
Nov 05 14:58:41 <Fred___> for now .
Nov 05 14:58:46 <Fred___> I need to read
Nov 05 14:58:48 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 14:58:55 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 14:59:00 <dgvr> Just put major decisions about whether something is core or otherwise to an open vote of users...they'll tell you soon enough whether its required core or not
Nov 05 14:59:02 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 14:59:14 <Kai_> mark_o_
Nov 05 14:59:26 <mark_o_> @Carlos You hit the point. One could provide an extension, easily
Nov 05 14:59:27 <mark_o_> to check and integrate...
Nov 05 14:59:49 <mark_o_> And maybe goood enough to get into core sometime? No fear of revert.
Nov 05 14:59:52 <mark_o_> .
Nov 05 15:00:19 <Kai_> OK then ar_howard
Nov 05 15:00:23 <ar_howard> As an end-user it is easier to turn functionality off and have 1 best practice soln than to try and import additional modules - too much time wasted picking "the right" think to addin - isn't it better that everyone contribute to 1 best practice solution?
Nov 05 15:00:28 <ar_howard> .
Nov 05 15:00:38 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 15:00:46 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 15:00:58 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:01:05 <jsSolutions> that would be nice- but as you get up the stack of features, it's not realistic
Nov 05 15:01:15 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:01:27 <jsSolutions> posterita POS and OB POS are tailored for very different scenarios
Nov 05 15:01:40 <jsSolutions> and personal preference weighs in
Nov 05 15:01:58 <jsSolutions> it's not so much an issue at the accounting level- there you can have a best practice
Nov 05 15:02:10 <jsSolutions> but POS level is very preferential
Nov 05 15:02:11 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 15:02:19 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:02:23 <dgvr> @ar_howard: Agreed default functionality with other extensions optional....but still potentially available
Nov 05 15:02:43 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:02:45 <dgvr> soz
Nov 05 15:02:49 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:02:52 <CarlosRuiz> as Mark pointed rules to add business things in Adempiere are (and I think MUST BE) strict.
Nov 05 15:02:52 <CarlosRuiz> extension developers must have a playground where they can develop without asking too much about permissions - following some recommendations to allow easy integration
Nov 05 15:03:03 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:03:17 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 15:04:26 <hengsin> I'm not sure a strict definition is good here, I'm pro that we are more open and provide ample room for innovations instead
Nov 05 15:04:28 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:04:37 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:04:52 <Fred___> Our playground is the Posterita project now. We are happy there.
Nov 05 15:04:54 <Fred___> You will notice how fast we started changing things the day we moved outside of Adempiere. That's because prior to that, we tried to build everything with only core functionality, and tried not to modify a single piece of code.
Nov 05 15:05:26 <Fred___> Note that every core code, we modify from Adempiere is easily identified. Because we intend to stay in synch with Adempiere.
Nov 05 15:05:27 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 15:05:27 <Fred___> Note very important we did not, and will not rebrand Adempiere.
Nov 05 15:05:29 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:05:48 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 15:06:36 <hengsin> fred, just want to point out that's not the right way when you build things together with core. if you are staying close then it is a different game
Nov 05 15:06:38 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:06:56 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:07:00 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:07:23 <CarlosRuiz> well - I suppose we had some flaws managing POsterita relations
Nov 05 15:07:29 <CarlosRuiz> but we can learn and adapt
Nov 05 15:07:42 <CarlosRuiz> they could be close even opening own project in sourceforge
Nov 05 15:07:55 <CarlosRuiz> it's time to try again to get them close :-)
Nov 05 15:07:56 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:07:56 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:08:15 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:08:37 <Fred___> hengsin, what do you mean right way ethically or technically?
Nov 05 15:09:04 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 15:09:10 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:09:15 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:09:57 <crooney> ok this is NOT aimed at Fred but I am playing devil advocate
Nov 05 15:10:02 <crooney> but
Nov 05 15:10:06 <crooney> I also see a different between an extension in our repository such as Carlos' localisation and one outside .. because we here allow all to make changes but another project might not and might like JJ did try to keep control my restricting access to only themselves
Nov 05 15:10:24 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:10:28 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 15:11:03 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:11:13 <hengsin> Fred, I means technically when you are working close to the kernel, then the mode of working is different. think a kernel linux driver vs a user space driver.
Nov 05 15:11:14 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:11:28 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:11:42 <CarlosRuiz> Colin, yes - there's a difference. What I say is someway is a flaw from Adempiere - they needed to open different project because we don't have clear policies.
Nov 05 15:11:57 <CarlosRuiz> Maybe with clear policies they could return - or we can have clear policies even for them out of our svn repository.
Nov 05 15:11:59 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:12:06 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:12:09 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:12:15 <Kai_> Sorry crooney
Nov 05 15:12:58 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 15:13:05 <Kai_> crooney your turn
Nov 05 15:13:15 <crooney> ok I really wasn't speaking of posterita .. but if we have extensions do we include extension from other project that do not allow access? as we saw with compiere a GPL is not everything!
Nov 05 15:13:29 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:13:39 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 15:13:46 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:13:48 * ar_howard (n=AHoward@ppp118-208-77-224.lns1.bne4.internode.on.net) has left #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:14:03 * jmpiloq (n=jmpiloq@xdsl-213-196-207-35.netcologne.de) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:15:06 <hengsin> carlos, I think we should be more open here, not everyone must do their things in Adempiere svn, people can have choice and it is then up to the user and others to decide whether to use that
Nov 05 15:15:08 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:15:12 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:15:32 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:15:40 <CarlosRuiz> Colin/Heng Sin - being on svn repository or not is a matter of the next question
Nov 05 15:15:40 <CarlosRuiz> - what must be the behavior (open source behavior I suppose) of extensions?
Nov 05 15:15:56 <CarlosRuiz> so - if we think it's enough about defining extensino
Nov 05 15:15:57 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:15:58 <CarlosRuiz> extension
Nov 05 15:16:03 <CarlosRuiz> we could go for next topics
Nov 05 15:16:04 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:16:07 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 15:16:18 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:16:21 <dgvr> There seems to be some anxiety about an extension growing legs and becoming independent. Is that correct?
Nov 05 15:16:29 <dgvr> Are we including in the defining an "extension" the capaciy to be a potentially independent product? If so, then thats way out of my understanding of an "extension".
Nov 05 15:16:45 <dgvr> A seperate compenent, even justifisying its own project, that dovetails into the "core" is what I understand as an "extension".
Nov 05 15:16:47 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:16:54 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:17:10 <Fred___> Fist of all we want to be friendly with Adempiere
Nov 05 15:17:17 <Fred___> Hengsin, Ok yes we probably have a lot of flaws. I agree our main priority right now is to get something working. and not really to get it working perfectly with Adempiere. Just a priority thing. Not saying that this is not important.
Nov 05 15:17:36 <Fred___> What is important for us
Nov 05 15:17:52 <Fred___> is to know what is it that is tolerated by Adempiere
Nov 05 15:17:58 <Fred___> and which is not
Nov 05 15:18:10 <Fred___> The biggest issue for us
Nov 05 15:18:16 <Fred___> has always been trademark
Nov 05 15:18:22 <Fred___> we have no issue in opening up our svn
Nov 05 15:18:28 <Fred___> no issue with rebranding
Nov 05 15:18:34 <Fred___> no issue with acknowledging people work
Nov 05 15:18:40 <Fred___> even with fork for a matter of fact
Nov 05 15:18:54 <Fred___> no issue with copyright
Nov 05 15:19:30 <Fred___> if you can propose something that works for us
Nov 05 15:19:38 <Fred___> we are for getting closer
Nov 05 15:19:48 <Fred___> but getting closer does not necessarily mean same repository
Nov 05 15:19:51 <Fred___> I agree with hengsin
Nov 05 15:19:53 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:19:58 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 15:20:07 <jsSolutions> it's naive to think we can define behavior of extensions. if someone wants to make a close source extension, they can, and if someone wants to use it they can. People must choose the open-source community approach on it's own merit- better quality code and features if many adopt it.
Nov 05 15:20:24 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:20:31 <jsSolutions> it's just an exercise in futility to try to combat those that want another way
Nov 05 15:20:32 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 15:20:36 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:21:05 <CarlosRuiz> Joel, we can't define the behavior - but we can define the EXPECTED behavior to be considered as a friendly adempiere extension
Nov 05 15:21:14 <CarlosRuiz> something like "certified" extension
Nov 05 15:21:23 <CarlosRuiz> if it accomplish some policies from us - we could "certify" it
Nov 05 15:21:44 <CarlosRuiz> and as Fred pointed - I think we need clear policies
Nov 05 15:21:51 <CarlosRuiz> and hopefully "stable" policies
Nov 05 15:21:56 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:22:00 <banym> !
Nov 05 15:22:08 <Kai_> banym
Nov 05 15:22:45 <banym> and all don't want to work close to adempiere? they are just not "certified"?
Nov 05 15:22:46 <banym> .
Nov 05 15:23:04 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:23:09 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:23:28 <CarlosRuiz> yes - I suppose proprietary extensions won't be "certified" to follow the recommended policies from Adempiere project
Nov 05 15:23:43 <banym> !
Nov 05 15:23:45 <CarlosRuiz> extensions hiding sources - etc - but that must be a matter of the next questions - if we can agree first on the first one
Nov 05 15:23:48 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:23:54 <CarlosRuiz> do we have enough about what an extension is?
Nov 05 15:24:00 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:24:05 <Kai_> banym
Nov 05 15:24:16 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:24:54 <banym> so i want to write a extension and what is my benefit to be certified. do my users get help in adempiere forum if extension is not working. becaues if there is no benefit and a lot of work nobody will "certifie" his extension that's what i think.
Nov 05 15:24:54 <banym> .
Nov 05 15:25:22 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:25:29 <Fred___> Carlos, What is a proprietary extension?
Nov 05 15:25:36 * trifon_ (n=chatzill@78.90.20.97) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:25:41 <Fred___> and what I think
Nov 05 15:25:45 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:25:59 <Fred___> what would be of greatest value for us
Nov 05 15:26:05 <Fred___> if we are 'certify'
Nov 05 15:26:19 <Fred___> is to have our Adempiere+Posterita release under Adempiere downloads
Nov 05 15:26:29 <Fred___> at the end of the day
Nov 05 15:26:39 <Fred___> we are looking for eye balls
Nov 05 15:26:41 <Fred___> :)
Nov 05 15:26:42 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:26:48 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:26:53 <dgvr> You can't stop someone creating a closed source extension or closed source anything but you can stop supporting them as an open-source community.
Nov 05 15:26:54 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 15:27:01 <dgvr> Freeze them out of all community driven open source resources and discussions as they've elected to do to the community.
Nov 05 15:27:08 <dgvr> This is a community driven business- not a charity for private investors
Nov 05 15:27:09 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:27:20 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:27:37 <CarlosRuiz> good point Fred - it can answer banym about the benefit of being certified
Nov 05 15:27:50 <CarlosRuiz> we could think on creating distro's - with certified extensions
Nov 05 15:27:50 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:28:00 <Kai_> hengsin
Nov 05 15:28:31 <hengsin> fred, it is all there for your to provide that, I don't think we have ever say we don't want that
Nov 05 15:28:35 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:28:59 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:29:03 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:29:29 <Fred___> yes I never said you did not allow us
Nov 05 15:29:36 <Fred___> however our overall feeling was that
Nov 05 15:29:39 * Bahman has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host))
Nov 05 15:29:41 <banym> !
Nov 05 15:29:42 <Fred___> brand are not welcomed :(
Nov 05 15:29:43 * Bahman (n=Bahman@80.71.122.75) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:29:53 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:29:53 <Fred___> we have a hard time to imagine us having a living without a brand
Nov 05 15:30:13 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:30:19 <Kai_> banym
Nov 05 15:31:40 <banym> different distributions is not a good idea in my opinion. creating a nice install wizard where you can choose 'certified' extensions would be more nice. there you can also add some informations.
Nov 05 15:31:41 <banym> .
Nov 05 15:31:52 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:32:02 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:32:05 <crooney> well I didn't think we would discuss specific but since it was raised...
Nov 05 15:32:05 <crooney> Fred___, welit sounds like you want a product to sell to Adempiere users.
Nov 05 15:32:05 <crooney> So you want to feed of Adempiere's sucesss
Nov 05 15:32:31 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 15:32:32 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:32:46 <crooney> people come here and to compiere & open bravo and many many come back because of the support they get in IRC & Forums
Nov 05 15:32:55 <crooney> this is what makes adempiere great not just the code
Nov 05 15:33:05 <CarlosRuiz> ! call to order - please avoid specific - we'll try to establish policies
Nov 05 15:33:18 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:33:37 <Kai_> OK, Carlos
Nov 05 15:33:43 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:33:48 <Kai_> So please hengsin (last on list)
Nov 05 15:34:07 * muthah (n=muthah@212.49.87.23) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:34:49 <hengsin> banym, the problem is that is a very difficult things to do. why do we have eclipse distribution, linux distribution ? branding aside, it is an incredibly complex problem to tackle
Nov 05 15:34:51 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 15:35:06 <crooney> ! to carlos
Nov 05 15:36:47 <Kai_> OK, Fred___ but we should come back to the starting question
Nov 05 15:36:48 <Kai_> Then CarlosRuiz now
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> OK - I suppose it's enough for the first two questions:
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> - what is an extension?
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> - do we want to encourage extensions? or do we want everything goes to core?
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> Do we have agreement on this? - I think just Colin is opposing to encourage extensions.
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> If there is enough agreement we can go for the next three questions:
Nov 05 15:37:00 <CarlosRuiz> - if we would want to encourage extensions - what must be the proper way on Adempiere?
Nov 05 15:37:01 <CarlosRuiz> - what must be the behavior (open source behavior I suppose) of extensions?
Nov 05 15:37:03 <CarlosRuiz> - what about trademarks in extensions? conditions? risk management?
Nov 05 15:37:05 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:37:25 * Muthah_cell has quit ("Stupid 3G network")
Nov 05 15:38:00 <Fred___> Ok I think I need to address Colin point of view can I?
Nov 05 15:38:11 <crooney> well can I just say first
Nov 05 15:38:15 <crooney> I didn't mean to be rude .. apologises to Fred if it seemed so .. but the conversation went all about posterita so I was responding to that.
Nov 05 15:38:32 <Fred___> ok no offense taken
Nov 05 15:38:40 <Fred___> Colin, I respect you point of view and it may be seen as such.
Nov 05 15:38:42 <Fred___> I have developers that needs to get paid at the end of the day.
Nov 05 15:38:43 <Fred___> We are all making a living differently. We are in mauritus a lonely island with no market for ERP
Nov 05 15:38:48 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:39:55 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:40:18 <CarlosRuiz> sorry Colin - direct question: Do we have agreement on this? - I think just Colin is opposing to encourage extensions.
Nov 05 15:40:31 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:40:45 <crooney> agreement? that we have discussed it yes ... we can continue
Nov 05 15:41:33 <Kai_> OK, I have no one on my list.
Nov 05 15:41:36 <crooney> sorry I forgot
Nov 05 15:41:36 <CarlosRuiz> ok - can we continue then with the next three questions:
Nov 05 15:41:36 <CarlosRuiz> - if we would want to encourage extensions - what must be the proper way on Adempiere?
Nov 05 15:41:36 <CarlosRuiz> - what must be the behavior (open source behavior I suppose) of extensions?
Nov 05 15:41:36 <CarlosRuiz> - what about trademarks in extensions? conditions? risk management?
Nov 05 15:41:36 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:41:36 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:41:49 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:41:50 <jmpiloq> !
Nov 05 15:41:50 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:41:51 <dgvr> agree with Banym re the single distribution with a "nice install wizard where you can choose 'certified' extensions" ...certification is an important issue ...it should be a process that encourages innovation and creativity...i.e. doesn't constrain it
Nov 05 15:41:59 <dgvr> What happenend to the issue with extensions "what type of companies we like here, what type of open-source behavior we expect here"
Nov 05 15:42:10 <dgvr> and is there a time limit on this meeting?
Nov 05 15:42:12 <dgvr> ...
Nov 05 15:42:16 <dgvr> oopla
Nov 05 15:42:17 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:42:22 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:42:52 <Kai_> jmpiloq
Nov 05 15:42:57 <jmpiloq> I think the main benefit of a certified extensions would be to ensure interoperability of adempiere and extension, and between extensions. But to achieve that, there has to be a clear and defined interface against which extensions can be implemented - and thus certified. Things get complicated, as soon as some parts of an extension are to be "promoted" to adempiere core. How to handle that? Moreover: who documents/maintains ex
Nov 05 15:42:57 <jmpiloq> ss? who certifies?
Nov 05 15:42:59 <jmpiloq> .
Nov 05 15:43:24 <Kai_> Actually we set no time limit
Nov 05 15:43:24 <Kai_> Should we?
Nov 05 15:43:43 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:43:48 <CarlosRuiz> ok, can we start discussing this:
Nov 05 15:43:49 <CarlosRuiz> - what must be the behavior (open source behavior I suppose) of extensions?
Nov 05 15:43:49 <CarlosRuiz> Can I suggest for example:
Nov 05 15:44:03 <CarlosRuiz> - no hiding sources
Nov 05 15:44:04 <CarlosRuiz> - no licensing tricks
Nov 05 15:44:04 <CarlosRuiz> - open for adempiere committers
Nov 05 15:44:19 <CarlosRuiz> - following recommended guidelines for extensions (to be defined technically)
Nov 05 15:44:26 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:44:31 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:44:37 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:44:40 <dgvr> No time limit often leads to poor preperation and lost productivity
Nov 05 15:45:10 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 15:45:17 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 15:46:13 <jsSolutions> Carlos' suggestions are good. For those standards, it would be better to do a wiki page to edit and publish publically. (Not that wiki guidelines have helped us so far ;) )
Nov 05 15:46:14 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 15:46:30 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:46:57 <Kai_> OK, I just would like to open the discussion regarding the question if we should set a time limit.
Nov 05 15:47:08 <Kai_> So please answer without permission....
Nov 05 15:47:16 <Fred___> I have about 20 more mins
Nov 05 15:47:38 <Fred___> but I can read the rest later
Nov 05 15:48:02 <jsSolutions> let's formally close at the top of the hour
Nov 05 15:48:17 <jsSolutions> but of course, people can chat as long as they want
Nov 05 15:48:18 <Fred___> ok
Nov 05 15:48:22 <crooney> I think 2 hours is a long time so far and see no issue with stooping and picking up again another time
Nov 05 15:48:22 <mark_o_> ok
Nov 05 15:48:26 <hengsin> yeap, agree, no meeting should runs more than 2 hours :)
Nov 05 15:48:42 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:48:47 <crooney> in retrospect we should of course have set some rules on that at the start i Guess
Nov 05 15:49:10 <Kai_> OK, I set the endpoint to 17:15
Nov 05 15:49:25 <crooney> that's CET :)
Nov 05 15:49:26 <Kai_> then Fred___ is next
Nov 05 15:49:37 <Kai_> Oh Sorry, 16:15 GMT :-)
Nov 05 15:49:39 <crooney> 17:15?
Nov 05 15:49:42 <crooney> :)
Nov 05 15:49:46 <mark_o_> :-)
Nov 05 15:50:03 <crooney> ok
Nov 05 15:50:04 <jsSolutions> whew- i thought you meant 10 more hours...
Nov 05 15:50:09 <crooney> lol
Nov 05 15:50:10 * vpj-cd (n=eEvoluti@corp-200-105-231-237-uio.punto.net.ec) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:50:37 <Kai_> OK time limit set. No we continue. So shut up everyone. :-)
Nov 05 15:50:45 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:50:52 <Fred___> Hiding sources - Are we allowed to have a SaaS version that will have some exclusive functions? This is what Posterita is planning to do. It is written on our website. I can explain my rational and fear behind.
Nov 05 15:51:08 <Fred___> opinion welcome?
Nov 05 15:51:10 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:51:19 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:51:33 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:51:36 <dgvr> loo.. re the 10 hours...just a comment ...I agree with everyone re the time limit and other basics in advance...
Nov 05 15:51:53 <dgvr> Do we have a definition of "core" and "extenstion" yet?
Nov 05 15:51:55 <dgvr> What happenend to the issue with extensions "what type of companies we like here, what type of open-source behavior we expect here"
Nov 05 15:53:02 <Kai_> dgvr: Done?
Nov 05 15:53:05 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:53:07 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:53:08 <dgvr> sorry
Nov 05 15:53:31 <CarlosRuiz> To Fred, about Hiding sources - I would go for GPLv3 that explicitly disallows that SaaS trick
Nov 05 15:53:38 <CarlosRuiz> I mean we can't go for GPLv3
Nov 05 15:53:45 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:53:46 <CarlosRuiz> but I think we need to establish that as policy
Nov 05 15:53:49 * armenrz (n=IceChat7@125.160.140.119) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:53:49 <CarlosRuiz> here
Nov 05 15:53:54 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:53:58 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:54:18 <crooney> I was just going to point out to people the nearly done aGPL too
Nov 05 15:54:23 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:54:26 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 15:54:34 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 15:54:40 <dgvr> Are we against Saas?..
Nov 05 15:54:47 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:54:51 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 15:54:52 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 15:54:52 <dgvr> If so, may I ask why?
Nov 05 15:54:54 <dgvr> .
Nov 05 15:54:59 <CarlosRuiz> no - we're not against SaaS
Nov 05 15:55:00 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:55:08 <CarlosRuiz> GPLv3 explicitly is against SaaS trick
Nov 05 15:55:19 <CarlosRuiz> as Google - that extends some things but doesn't release code
Nov 05 15:55:21 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 15:55:28 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 15:55:43 <crooney> I think Joel was next but I was just going to explain to Dave
Nov 05 15:55:53 <dgvr> :)
Nov 05 15:55:54 <crooney> that under GPL
Nov 05 15:56:20 <Kai_> Sorry Joel, my fault.
Nov 05 15:56:23 <crooney> SaaS does not contitute distribution and so code must not be released .. which Carlos touched on
Nov 05 15:56:23 <crooney> .
Nov 05 15:56:24 <jsSolutions> np :)
Nov 05 15:56:35 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 15:56:36 <dgvr> aha..thank you
Nov 05 15:56:46 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 15:56:56 * armenrizal (n=IceChat7@125.160.149.211) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 15:57:29 <Kai_> Joel?
Nov 05 15:57:40 <jsSolutions> sorry- typing
Nov 05 15:57:50 <jsSolutions> Very similar- I am just the parrot today :) SaaS may be a great benefit to user companies, we can't frown on it
Nov 05 15:58:17 <crooney> !
Nov 05 15:58:25 <jsSolutions> and as Colin says, its not a distribution so the provider must choose
Nov 05 15:58:34 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 15:58:37 <jsSolutions> and they can represent what they do and others can judge
Nov 05 15:58:40 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 15:58:53 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 15:59:26 <Fred___> It's not clear... is Adempiere ok with Posterita having a SaaS version?
Nov 05 15:59:34 <Fred___> Our community version has no tricks whatsoever
Nov 05 15:59:36 <red1> !
Nov 05 15:59:37 <Fred___> and open to all
Nov 05 15:59:40 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 15:59:47 <Kai_> crooney
Nov 05 16:00:31 <crooney> I was going to add that I agree SaaS can be very attractive to firm that do not wish technical skills in house ... the worry is the use of SaaS to avoid sharing code
Nov 05 16:01:07 <crooney> but adoption of the aGPL license (not sure if GPLv3 is enough carlos but I could be wrong) would mean that issue is resolved
Nov 05 16:01:15 <crooney> .
Nov 05 16:01:20 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 16:01:33 <CarlosRuiz> well - what I'm saying is
Nov 05 16:01:38 <CarlosRuiz> technically
Nov 05 16:01:44 <CarlosRuiz> we can't go for GPLv3 or aGPL
Nov 05 16:01:52 <CarlosRuiz> we must stay in GPLv2
Nov 05 16:02:07 <CarlosRuiz> but we can define policies for extensions to avoid the called "SaaS loophole"
Nov 05 16:02:24 <CarlosRuiz> sorry Fred - I'm not meaning there are tricks in your code
Nov 05 16:02:36 <CarlosRuiz> SaaS loophole is extendedly discussed in free software discussions
Nov 05 16:02:48 <CarlosRuiz> and it's seem as a way to hijack without contributing
Nov 05 16:02:59 <CarlosRuiz> or to have hidden sources in some way
Nov 05 16:03:13 <CarlosRuiz> it's considered as damaging the freedom of software
Nov 05 16:03:19 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 16:03:23 <CarlosRuiz> I would prefer we avoid the SaaS loophole here
Nov 05 16:03:30 <CarlosRuiz> wer'e open for SaaS
Nov 05 16:03:43 <CarlosRuiz> but releasing properly the code as if we were in GPLv3 or aGPL
Nov 05 16:03:43 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 16:04:13 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 16:04:19 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 16:04:37 <Kai_> Timeout exception caught... ;-)
Nov 05 16:04:39 <Kai_> One more left for this an then I would to go to another point.
Nov 05 16:04:48 <Kai_> red1
Nov 05 16:05:02 <red1> thank you mr chairman...
Nov 05 16:05:10 <red1> If i may say, what companies want to do with the software is up to them under GPL v2 terms. I think our agenda here is what to do about our extensions and how to advice others to come to us with their extensions...
Nov 05 16:05:27 <red1> Thus if ABC company took any software and do Saas, so what? They can have tricks which are very fine because any law GPL for that matter is bound to have loopholes. But how they give back for any extension has to be our focus. We have to be that liberal. Posterita needs advice on how best they wish to give back extensions if any...
Nov 05 16:05:46 <red1> Likewise, In Trifon example, he needs to be advised how to handle another project's extension. This is what i understand of the concern Carlos raised that day. Cos by not having such a policy may confuse contributors and end up a diminished project
Nov 05 16:05:48 <red1> .
Nov 05 16:06:11 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 16:06:40 <Kai_> I know there are some hands left.
Nov 05 16:06:53 <Kai_> But we are running out of time, so I would like to lead over to technical guidelines
Nov 05 16:07:08 <Kai_> If nobody minds....
Nov 05 16:07:16 <jsSolutions> ok
Nov 05 16:07:29 <Kai_> Carlos? Do want to start?
Nov 05 16:07:54 <CarlosRuiz> again - technically we're in GPLv2 - so SaaS loophole is allowed
Nov 05 16:07:54 <CarlosRuiz> what I mean is if we "certify" an extension doing such extendedly discussed bad-practice for free software
Nov 05 16:07:54 <CarlosRuiz> so I would prefer to make clear that certified extensions must avoid the SaaS loophole - even if not compelled by the GPLv2
Nov 05 16:07:54 <CarlosRuiz> now to the technical guidelines I would suggest:
Nov 05 16:08:03 <CarlosRuiz> INITIALLY these technical guidelines (to be extended via forum discussion)
Nov 05 16:08:03 <CarlosRuiz> - no core (kernel-not-business) code must be modified
Nov 05 16:08:03 <CarlosRuiz> - recommended extension architecture -> callouts, modelvalidator, don't generate X_ classes for official adempiere tables
Nov 05 16:08:03 <CarlosRuiz> - ID's for extensions must be reserved officially
Nov 05 16:08:05 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 16:08:55 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 16:09:07 <dgvr> Hello Red1....I believe that the loophole could be a problem....I'm just curious about why can't we go for GPLv3 or aGPL on future releases if they solve the SaaS problem
Nov 05 16:09:22 <dgvr> and second Carlos's suggestions..
Nov 05 16:09:38 <hengsin> !
Nov 05 16:10:44 <hengsin> dgvr, we can't because we are not the original owner for many of the source file in Adempiere
Nov 05 16:10:46 <hengsin> .
Nov 05 16:11:24 <Kai_> Fred___
Nov 05 16:11:30 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 16:11:55 <Fred___> Ok for me it is still not clear, if Adempiere will accept a Posterita SaaS
Nov 05 16:11:58 <CarlosRuiz> !
Nov 05 16:12:02 <Fred___> but I want to explain the rational
Nov 05 16:12:11 <Fred___> basically, we have invested a lot of money
Nov 05 16:12:13 <Fred___> in the code
Nov 05 16:12:27 <Fred___> and we basically fear, a bigger company
Nov 05 16:12:35 <Fred___> let's say like open bravo did to compiere
Nov 05 16:12:42 <Fred___> to extend and market the product
Nov 05 16:12:50 <Fred___> we are totally ok to open the source code
Nov 05 16:12:53 <Fred___> even for the saas
Nov 05 16:12:58 <Fred___> and we believe we will have to do it
Nov 05 16:13:06 <Fred___> but not until we got a minimum amount of momentum
Nov 05 16:13:13 <Fred___> otherwise we will be basically dead
Nov 05 16:13:17 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 16:13:35 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 16:13:45 <dgvr> A very, very good point....
Nov 05 16:13:49 <Kai_> jsSolutions
Nov 05 16:14:31 <jsSolutions> back to the tech standards. I agree with Carlos' suggestions. As we mature it would be good to also require an installer or 2Pack
Nov 05 16:14:42 <jsSolutions> .
Nov 05 16:15:03 <Kai_> CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 16:15:24 <CarlosRuiz> well - I suppose is the work from Redhuan to evangelize Fred about open source and free software :-)
Nov 05 16:15:40 <CarlosRuiz> in the meanwhile you can look for "SaaS loophole" or "ASP loophole" in google
Nov 05 16:15:46 <CarlosRuiz> my few words about are
Nov 05 16:15:55 <CarlosRuiz> what if Adempiere start thinking the same way?
Nov 05 16:16:18 <CarlosRuiz> and we start hiding SaaS code - then Posterita won't have future - neither any extension - because the central would have the control
Nov 05 16:16:26 <CarlosRuiz> that's the trick trying to extend compiere or openbravo
Nov 05 16:16:34 <CarlosRuiz> you can't be sure that they don't start hiding code
Nov 05 16:16:36 <Fred___> !
Nov 05 16:16:38 <CarlosRuiz> and break your extensions
Nov 05 16:16:43 <red1> !
Nov 05 16:16:46 <CarlosRuiz> here we need to go deeper
Nov 05 16:16:56 <CarlosRuiz> and about fear of something bigger - I doubt it
Nov 05 16:16:59 <CarlosRuiz> as Redhuan say
Nov 05 16:17:04 <CarlosRuiz> you'll put the flag first
Nov 05 16:17:04 <CarlosRuiz> .
Nov 05 16:17:17 <Kai_> Fred___ : (quick pleas)
Nov 05 16:17:27 <Fred___> agree with you carlos
Nov 05 16:17:35 <Fred___> If adempiere was agpl
Nov 05 16:17:39 <Fred___> then it protects everyone
Nov 05 16:17:41 <Fred___> even our work
Nov 05 16:17:46 <Fred___> but it doesn't
Nov 05 16:17:52 <Fred___> so I am willing to play fair
Nov 05 16:17:57 <Fred___> but other has no scrupule
Nov 05 16:18:03 * armenrz has quit (Connection timed out)
Nov 05 16:18:05 <Fred___> how do I protect myself?
Nov 05 16:18:07 <Fred___> .
Nov 05 16:18:15 <Kai_> red1
Nov 05 16:18:21 <red1> thanks again mr chairman, you been wonderful ... (pretty quick here cos i type ahead ! :) ....
Nov 05 16:18:25 <red1> I often feel that ppl miscalculate FOSS and how to market their products with FOSS. Nobody can steal what is free. OB did not steal from Compiere in that way. They used $$$ to do that i.e. reverse engineered Compiere. It was also Compiere's fault, using the same line of thinking Fred (with due respect) uses here. By faltering, they allow others to take the cup. But then ADempiere is born and we are leading and will diminish OB easily
Nov 05 16:18:48 <dgvr> !
Nov 05 16:18:53 <red1> .
Nov 05 16:19:01 <Kai_> dgvr
Nov 05 16:19:05 <dgvr> Just a quick comment ...I don't know how everybody else found it todays...but I found the meeting and how it was conducted to be was very impressive
Nov 05 16:19:07 <dgvr> Speaking for myself only ...thanks to all involved
Nov 05 16:19:24 <jsSolutions> !
Nov 05 16:19:35 <Kai_> OK, our offical time is over.
Nov 05 16:19:56 <Kai_> So there would be the question regarding trademarks left.
Nov 05 16:20:07 <jsSolutions> then I speak freely ;) Yes, well done Kai! moderator here is tricky!
Nov 05 16:20:17 <dgvr> yo
Nov 05 16:20:48 <CarlosRuiz> thanks a lot to Kai for moderating - and thanks a lot to everybody for respecting the moderation
Nov 05 16:20:48 <CarlosRuiz> can we freely speak a little about trademarks?
Nov 05 16:20:57 <Fred___> Thanks everyone, guess there are issues still pending. But yes it was a great meeting.
Nov 05 16:21:06 <Fred___> ok shoot
Nov 05 16:21:12 <mark_o_> thanx all, great discussion
Nov 05 16:21:29 <CarlosRuiz> what really worries me about trademarked extensions is what happened to twiki this week
Nov 05 16:21:40 <Kai_> Actually I learned during this session.
Nov 05 16:21:58 <Kai_> So next time I wouldn't wast too much time at the begining.
Nov 05 16:21:59 <CarlosRuiz> but I suppose we can be open for trademarked extensions meanwhile they "behaves" properly according to the free-software definition
Nov 05 16:22:00 <Kai_> :-)
Nov 05 16:22:18 <red1> that the exclamation mark was misunderstood all this while
Nov 05 16:22:44 <trifon_> Carlos, what means open for trademark extensions?
Nov 05 16:23:06 <trifon_> does it mean we allow trademark to go in adempiere?
Nov 05 16:23:25 <mark_o_> not in adempiere core, but in the extension
Nov 05 16:23:25 <CarlosRuiz> my guess is - to be open for trademarked extensions - and allow them (as extensions) meanwhile they "behaves"
Nov 05 16:23:25 <CarlosRuiz> if the trademarked extension wants to go core - then it must not be trademarked in core
Nov 05 16:23:25 <CarlosRuiz> and if the trademarked extension starts to behave unproperly (open-source definition) then a fork without trademark can be considered
Nov 05 16:23:32 <red1> Open and company style branding in my opinon is ok.. and should not be confused with trademark which restricts others from its territory by legal means. A brand may not stop others to use it. Compiere doesnt want us to use it. Does Posterita refuse us to use it? It is up to Posterita to donate its brand to the project with condition that other companies do not use it other than in OSS only.
Nov 05 16:24:06 <trifon_> ok. i understadn, thank's. i also agree. core is free of tgrademarks. only adempeire.
Nov 05 16:24:28 <CarlosRuiz> that's just my guess - we're not taking decisions here
Nov 05 16:24:36 <red1> A brand that can be 'used' thruout a project and by its advocates and most of all show the bazaar spirit has to be allowed. In my early opinon of posterita startup, i held that posterita fulfill that image. How to 'give up' that brand, its up to Posterita.
Nov 05 16:24:40 <trifon_> yes. i was just asking for clarification.
Nov 05 16:25:14 <trifon_> tehre is technical issue too. at the moment fork happens both projects start having differeetn functionality.
Nov 05 16:25:38 <trifon_> so both must have different name.
Nov 05 16:25:50 <Fred___> Then call it trifon POS
Nov 05 16:26:08 <Fred___> no sarcasm here
Nov 05 16:26:19 <trifon_> yes.
Nov 05 16:26:33 <trifon_> for example now. Vicotr put MFG wihch we call Libero. but it is only in adempire.
Nov 05 16:26:37 <crooney> re: GPL .. I see now ... often you see "code is released under GPL version 2 or later” - compiere even used that with their CPL wording but the changed it when the moved to GPL to under the terms version 2 of the GNU General Public License
Nov 05 16:26:42 <crooney> so I see you point Carlos
Nov 05 16:26:52 <trifon_> if victor decide to release his own version of Ademprie and libero in it then we must change the name.
Nov 05 16:27:40 <red1> exactly trifon .. so in posterita case we need not change the name ... until they comercialise something that disturbs that
Nov 05 16:27:51 <CarlosRuiz> there is no libero within adempiere
Nov 05 16:28:00 <CarlosRuiz> it's just manufacturing - payroll - etc
Nov 05 16:28:08 <trifon_> yes. i know.
Nov 05 16:28:16 <trifon_> but libero is just synonym.
Nov 05 16:28:33 <red1> and also a brandname (non trademarkable)
Nov 05 16:28:44 <red1> name rcognition
Nov 05 16:28:58 <CarlosRuiz> if posterita POS is going to adempiere core - it must be simply the POS - or the webPOS
Nov 05 16:28:58 <CarlosRuiz> because we can have problems with trademarks
Nov 05 16:29:29 <red1> but CarlosRuiz .. as trifon said... we only need to act when that happens
Nov 05 16:29:35 <CarlosRuiz> that's why I guess we must try to keep them as an extension also - to be friendly - meanwhile they behave according to some rules - we promote them
Nov 05 16:29:50 <red1> just like in Compiere case, only when they say do not use their name, that we do not
Nov 05 16:30:08 <red1> we have to be brand friendly to contributors
Nov 05 16:30:21 <Fred___> we are ok with Adempiere having our trademark
Nov 05 16:30:24 <Fred___> it is beneficial for us
Nov 05 16:30:30 <Fred___> in fact that's what we have been fighting for
Nov 05 16:30:39 <Fred___> so I don't see why I should disagree to that
Nov 05 16:30:41 <CarlosRuiz> I suppose unless the trademark would be explicitly passed to adempiere - that could be a matter of risk for adempiere
Nov 05 16:30:50 <Fred___> not really
Nov 05 16:30:56 <Fred___> like red1 says
Nov 05 16:30:57 <CarlosRuiz> remember the twiki issue
Nov 05 16:31:00 <Fred___> it can be removed
Nov 05 16:31:11 <red1> ask Alex to draft a legal letter allowing co use under FOSS terms only for ADempiere
Nov 05 16:31:16 <crooney> yes Carlos I see your point
Nov 05 16:31:20 <hengsin> red1, just to clarify - using a register trademark without permission is illegal, we should be careful with that.
Nov 05 16:31:23 <red1> its a dual trademark
Nov 05 16:31:46 <red1> absolutely.. thats why i said only when that TM is stated otherwise.. or legallised for us
Nov 05 16:32:07 <CarlosRuiz> yes - it can be simple - asking for permission to use the trademark when integrating into core
Nov 05 16:32:08 <red1> if the TM says "yes we allow FOSS to use us" then IMHO it shuld be ok
Nov 05 16:32:08 <CarlosRuiz> if permission granted - then trademark could be used - if denied - then we rename
Nov 05 16:32:15 <Fred___> yes
Nov 05 16:32:23 <red1> but if FSF says no, then hengsin is rite
Nov 05 16:32:35 <CarlosRuiz> linux is a trademark - and they have policies about "fair use"
Nov 05 16:32:42 <red1> but i have another issue with posterita
Nov 05 16:32:52 <Fred___> which is?
Nov 05 16:32:53 <red1> it also has to recognise others that contribute to it
Nov 05 16:33:03 <vpj-cd> trifon_ the name is only alias for or project name
Nov 05 16:33:06 <Fred___> well Adempiere has not been rebranded
Nov 05 16:33:22 <Fred___> and yes i intend to recognise the contributors
Nov 05 16:33:30 <vpj-cd> I in e-Evolution only want that the community know what are the contribution the e-Evolution
Nov 05 16:33:34 <Fred___> do not do to others
Nov 05 16:33:39 <Fred___> what you do not want they to do to you
Nov 05 16:33:50 <trifon_> vpj-cd: know. i just took libero as example.
Nov 05 16:33:52 <vpj-cd> then software is free and is GPL because ADempiere is GPL
Nov 05 16:33:57 <red1> perhaps i can use eEvolution as example... it recognises others really well
Nov 05 16:34:07 <Fred___> If triffon wants to invest effort in Posterita, we are willing to give him some sort of special status/partnership
Nov 05 16:34:15 <vpj-cd> so any software create under ADempiere need be GPL2
Nov 05 16:34:31 <vpj-cd> is the license
Nov 05 16:35:14 <dgvr> Its very important that Adempiere has only 1 name and that name applies to all of its "extensions". Each extension should only have a generic functional identification as an option WITHIN Adempiere
Nov 05 16:35:39 <vpj-cd> as I said before the best marketing for an implementor is know your contribution
Nov 05 16:35:39 <vpj-cd> in world
Nov 05 16:35:39 <red1> Fred___: that is good with regard to trifon.. it is thus something that JJ refused to do !
Nov 05 16:35:56 <Fred___> yes, he gives us time
Nov 05 16:35:58 <trifon_> Also to clarify what means extension. usualy people think something which you can just enable/disable wehn you want.
Nov 05 16:36:03 <Fred___> we give him recognition
Nov 05 16:36:13 <red1> if u re willing to 'dilute' your IP so to speak... the way u did with George Orwell's hold on satirism
Nov 05 16:36:22 <CarlosRuiz> I suppose the "trademark" policies on extensions is something we need to ellaborate more - thinking on risks
Nov 05 16:36:32 <vpj-cd> when you take the decision for create under ADempiere your extention is GPLV!
Nov 05 16:36:33 <vpj-cd> 2
Nov 05 16:36:42 <Fred___> yes we are gpl2
Nov 05 16:36:48 <Fred___> he can contribute
Nov 05 16:36:50 <Fred___> in our svn
Nov 05 16:37:07 <trifon_> yes.
Nov 05 16:37:16 <Fred___> everybody is welcome, I may not have learned everything red1
Nov 05 16:37:20 <Fred___> but you taught us lot still
Nov 05 16:37:20 <vpj-cd> now I think the answered is in the trademark
Nov 05 16:37:25 <vpj-cd> ie MYSQL
Nov 05 16:37:29 <trifon_> ok generally. wha ti see is that most of Adempeire comunity agree to have trademark free Adempeire.
Nov 05 16:37:40 <red1> but not as well about Animal Farm :D
Nov 05 16:37:51 <vpj-cd> they say the trademark only can are using as adjective
Nov 05 16:37:54 <red1> so trifon, now you are bigger hero than i thought !
Nov 05 16:38:03 <vpj-cd> do as subject or verbs
Nov 05 16:38:13 <red1> u own... how many?... 2? ... oh 3 projects !
Nov 05 16:38:13 <vpj-cd> do not as subject or verbs
Nov 05 16:38:33 <red1> vpj-cd: i think its up to us
Nov 05 16:38:36 <Fred___> ok i got to go
Nov 05 16:38:42 <red1> we need not follow mySQL
Nov 05 16:38:53 <CarlosRuiz> thanks a lot Fred___
Nov 05 16:38:57 <CarlosRuiz> for attending and for your openness
Nov 05 16:39:04 <Fred___> there are still pending issues, the channel for discussion here is open
Nov 05 16:39:07 <vpj-cd> the issue with the trademark is the legal issues
Nov 05 16:39:10 <Fred___> you are welcome carlosruiz
Nov 05 16:39:33 <Fred___> thanks red1
Nov 05 16:39:36 <Fred___> bye all
Nov 05 16:39:39 <red1> i will linger by the barn here... *waving paws to Fred___
Nov 05 16:39:40 <red1> bye
Nov 05 16:39:47 <crooney> bye fred
Nov 05 16:39:52 <trifon_> bye Fred
Nov 05 16:39:54 <red1> u re welcome Fred___
Nov 05 16:39:55 <mark_o_> bye Fred___
Nov 05 16:40:22 <Fred___> byyye thanks again
Nov 05 16:40:27 * Fred___ has quit ("ChatZilla 0.9.83 [Firefox 3.0.3/2008092417]")
Nov 05 16:40:35 <trifon_> if i understadn correctly if we allow trademark to go in ademprie and we do not have permission than trademrak owner can go to each use and ask him to stop using adempeire, is that right?
Nov 05 16:40:55 <jsSolutions> no
Nov 05 16:41:04 <jsSolutions> just to stop using trademark
Nov 05 16:41:09 <trifon_> ok. Joel can you please describe more?
Nov 05 16:41:14 <red1> and thanks
Nov 05 16:41:36 <trifon_> so trademrak owner will ask ademprie project to wtop using his trademark?
Nov 05 16:41:47 <jsSolutions> yes, and then it can be deleted
Nov 05 16:41:56 <jsSolutions> good work for freelancer! :)
Nov 05 16:42:26 <red1> but trifon u make more money
Nov 05 16:42:41 <red1> cos u ask trademarker to pay u to take the trademark out
Nov 05 16:42:44 <CarlosRuiz> ok - gtg - I'll leave this window open to read your last comments later - thanks to all - excellent meeting
Nov 05 16:42:44 <CarlosRuiz> hope this IRC chat goes to wiki page - and maybe if somebody can contribute with a summary
Nov 05 16:42:53 <red1> by that time, ppl will call it trifon POS already
Nov 05 16:42:54 <trifon_> but if we ask for legal permission from trademark owner then ademprie can distribute product with his trademark to as many users as adempeire owants, is that right?
Nov 05 16:43:11 <red1> have a nice day CarlosRuiz
Nov 05 16:43:17 <mark_o_> Carlos, thanx. Cya
Nov 05 16:43:43 <jsSolutions> trifon, yes, I suppose
Nov 05 16:43:44 <trifon_> red1: i just want to understand how legally things are.
Nov 05 16:44:02 <red1> i know... and your questions are right
Nov 05 16:44:12 <red1> i was just making jokes
Nov 05 16:44:16 <red1> otherwise i be shouting
Nov 05 16:44:25 <trifon_> ok. but then trademark owner do not have any protection anymore.
Nov 05 16:44:42 <red1> nope it depends on the conditions
Nov 05 16:44:50 <red1> just like copyleft
Nov 05 16:44:53 <red1> its also copyright
Nov 05 16:45:01 <red1> but the conditions are different
Nov 05 16:45:17 <red1> it gives u the right to distribute.. etc... but do not remove my name
Nov 05 16:45:33 <red1> or exclude others name that contributes
Nov 05 16:47:52 <dgvr> The point is to build in better ERP solution....not to built in "obsolescence" into the AD offer as a trick to extact more service $ from the client
Nov 05 16:48:07 * mwagner (n=mwagner@p5485C144.dip.t-dialin.net) has joined #adempiere-team
Nov 05 16:48:11 <dgvr> That is a very poor long term strategy
