IRC logs of #tryton for Saturday, 2010-06-19 #tryton log beginning Sat Jun 19 00:00:01 CEST 2010
2010-06-19 00:37 -!- pepeu(~manuel@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 00:45 -!- juanfer(~juanfer@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 00:47 <cedk> dba: on the other side, you can see the fact that many people own the copyright of the sotware as a garantee of his freedom
2010-06-19 00:48 <cedk> when there is only one guys, he can make the next version proprietary
2010-06-19 01:13 <dba> cedk: i'm not aware of any european juristiction that garantees that,
2010-06-19 01:13 <dba> not even the u.s. one does it.
2010-06-19 01:13 <dba> (remember: copyright != authorship)
2010-06-19 04:06 -!- plantian( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 05:09 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 05:18 -!- yangoon( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 06:45 -!- mr_amit(~amit@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 09:07 -!- plantian( has left #tryton
2010-06-19 09:26 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 09:26 <sharoon> hi
2010-06-19 09:26 <sharoon> can some one help me with caching?
2010-06-19 09:27 <sharoon> how can i use the native cache in tryton?
2010-06-19 09:31 <cedk> dba: I don't get you, you said: "i don't even consider to be able to change a license once there are more than one copyright holder" and now you are opposed to this
2010-06-19 09:31 <cedk> sharoon:
2010-06-19 09:44 <cedk> sharoon: did you understand?
2010-06-19 09:44 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 09:46 <cedk> dba: so when people give you their copyright, they must trust you that you will not change the license
2010-06-19 09:47 <cedk> dba: of course they can keep also the copyright, it depends of the contract you have with them
2010-06-19 09:47 <cedk> dba: but it is the copyright owner that defines the license
2010-06-19 09:54 <Mithrandir> cedk: but given that the point of assigning copyright is to enable a single entity to be able to change the licence, any such trust is pointless. If everybody agreed that the licence shouldn't be changed, they shouldn't assign copyright, possibly with the exception of when they leave the project.
2010-06-19 09:57 <cedk> Mithrandir: if there is only onw person owning the copyright, he is free to change the licence that all I want to say
2010-06-19 09:57 <cedk> Mithrandir: and that is why in Tryton we don't impose to give your copyright to someone when contributing
2010-06-19 09:59 -!- johbo( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 09:59 <Mithrandir> cedk: yes, I know what the implications of copyright assignment is. I'm saying that assigning copyright to a single entity and then trusting that person never to change the licence doesn't really make sense, since that's the single thing that entity can't do without getting copyrights assigned
2010-06-19 09:59 <cedk> so by extention having many people owning copyright on the software gives more garantee to keep the current license because it will require everybody agrement to change it
2010-06-19 10:00 <cedk> Mithrandir: +1
2010-06-19 10:00 <cedk> Mithrandir: this is my thought that I try to explain to dba
2010-06-19 10:00 <Mithrandir> indeed.
2010-06-19 10:01 <cedk> Mithrandir: this is linked to this
2010-06-19 10:01 <cedk> Mithrandir: and to this
2010-06-19 10:02 <sharoon> cedk sorry was out
2010-06-19 10:02 <sharoon> checking
2010-06-19 10:07 <Mithrandir> cedk: that looks like a hornet's nest I won't be going into.
2010-06-19 10:07 <cedk> Mithrandir: you speak about the issue?
2010-06-19 10:08 <Mithrandir> the discussion about whether to allow people to use shared accounts or not, which is basically what I understand it's about.
2010-06-19 10:09 <cedk> Mithrandir: there is that but also the name
2010-06-19 10:09 <cedk> Mithrandir: and the usage of
2010-06-19 10:09 <Mithrandir> yeah, that I can see as being problematic.
2010-06-19 10:10 -!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 10:11 <cedk> Mithrandir: that is why I setup a polls
2010-06-19 11:35 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 11:42 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 12:41 -!- enlightx( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 13:00 -!- janmalte(~quassel@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 13:14 <dba> cedk: i'm saying that as soon as you have more than one person holding copyrights,
2010-06-19 13:15 <dba> in practise, it's impossible to change the license because there's awlways someone that is not agreeing to changing it
2010-06-19 13:15 <dba> (either because he's not willing to, or because he cannot be found/is dead/whatever).
2010-06-19 13:15 <cedk> dba: that is why I said it is a garantee
2010-06-19 13:16 <dba> what garantee?
2010-06-19 13:17 <cedk> dba: that the license will stay GPL
2010-06-19 13:17 <cedk> dba: take as example OpenERP which only accept OpenERP SA as copyright
2010-06-19 13:17 <cedk> dba: OpenERP SA can choose to publish next release on different license
2010-06-19 13:18 <dba> cedk: and that's what i said is bad, it's important to be able to adjust the license in some situations
2010-06-19 13:18 <cedk> dba: you have no garantee that will not happen
2010-06-19 13:18 <cedk> dba: then you must trust the copyright owner
2010-06-19 13:18 <dba> i don't trust openerp, but i do trust individual people that i'm working with in the free software community.
2010-06-19 13:18 <dba> ymmv
2010-06-19 13:18 <cedk> dba: ymmv ???
2010-06-19 13:19 <dba>
2010-06-19 13:19 <cedk> dba: when do you want to adjust the license ?
2010-06-19 13:20 <dba> cedk: in cases where it's needed to better protect the freedom of it, e.g. for those reasons the gpl3 was written.
2010-06-19 13:21 <cedk> the only situation, I find it is good to give copyright to someone else is to foundation
2010-06-19 13:21 <cedk> dba: Tryton is under GPLv3 or later
2010-06-19 13:22 <dba> cedk: men, no hard feelings, but why are you nitpicking on *details* and not getting the picture?
2010-06-19 13:22 <cedk> dba: which picture?
2010-06-19 13:22 <dba> before we had gpl3, and you had a gpl2 software, you could not think of a reason why gpl2 would be perfect for all eternity.
2010-06-19 13:22 <dba> then the world changed (ms-novell deal, patents), and the gpl needed to be adjusted, resulting in gpl3.
2010-06-19 13:23 <cedk> dba: that is why we have GPLv3 or later
2010-06-19 13:23 <dba> i'm sure there will be a gpl4 in some time, and i'd like to be able to use that license in some time.
2010-06-19 13:23 <dba> cedk: again, you're hitting on the detail.
2010-06-19 13:23 <cedk> dba: that is why we have GPLv3 or *later*
2010-06-19 13:23 <dba> maybe the world changes so that you need to use a different license, not gpl. so you can't update.
2010-06-19 13:24 <dba> the point is that the world changes, you don't know when and how, and depending on how it changes, it is desirable to be able to adjust the license to match that.
2010-06-19 13:25 <Mithrandir> dba: you talk about gplv3 as if it's an improvement on gplv2, something quite some people don't agree with.
2010-06-19 13:25 <cedk> dba: we will not be able to change the license of Tryton with something other than GPL
2010-06-19 13:25 <cedk> dba: because there is Tiny is the copyright
2010-06-19 13:25 <Mithrandir> cedk: well, "just" rewrite those pieces.
2010-06-19 13:26 <Mithrandir> it's just lots of work.
2010-06-19 13:26 <cedk> Mithrandir: yes that is possible
2010-06-19 13:26 <Mithrandir> it's not like it's impossible, just loads and loads of busywork.
2010-06-19 13:26 <dba> Mithrandir: that's a different discussion which has nothing to do wit this one.
2010-06-19 13:26 <cedk> Mithrandir: and we don't need it as GPL is fine
2010-06-19 13:26 <dba> cedk: i stated why in *general* i want the ability to change the license.
2010-06-19 13:27 <cedk> All I want to say is that having only one copyright owner, give to this person all the power
2010-06-19 13:27 <Mithrandir> concentration of power is almost always bad.
2010-06-19 13:28 <cedk> Mithrandir: except if it is a Foundation like FSF or Gentoo where there are rules
2010-06-19 13:28 <Mithrandir> cedk: don't you think the FSF could be taken over by a company with large resources if they wanted?
2010-06-19 13:29 <cedk> Mithrandir: no it is a foundation
2010-06-19 13:30 <Mithrandir> yes, controlled by its members.
2010-06-19 13:30 <cedk> Mithrandir: yes and if you want you can become members to have some control :-)
2010-06-19 13:31 <cedk> to make a link with current news, the Compiere buy
2010-06-19 13:31 <Mithrandir> the fsf seems to have less than 10k members. I'm fairly sure that if say MS got 5-10k of its employees to join and cause havoc, they could effectively destroy it.
2010-06-19 13:32 <Mithrandir> sure, expensive and a PR disaster, but doable.
2010-06-19 13:32 <dba> .oO(i've seen enough examples where foundations and associations haven been destroyed, so i personally don't
2010-06-19 13:32 <cedk> it makes people worried because the company owns the copryright
2010-06-19 13:32 <dba> trust anything more *just* by the fact that it's an assoc. or found. but again, ymmv.)
2010-06-19 13:33 <cedk> but if the compiere sahred the copyright of the source with other member such worry will not happen
2010-06-19 13:33 <cedk> but of course buy will not happen also because there will be no value in the company (except the services)
2010-06-19 13:35 <dba> in your example, it boils down to this:
2010-06-19 13:35 <dba> if you have shared sources, they need to rewrite things first after the entity has been bought, in order to turn things proprietary.
2010-06-19 13:36 <cedk> dba: exactly
2010-06-19 13:36 <dba> if you have non-shared sources (or all copyright holders are agreeing), the entity can start doing priorietary things with the code immediately.
2010-06-19 13:36 <dba> but in both cases, you can't do anything against: a) the free version will not be developed any further by the entity,
2010-06-19 13:37 <dba> b) the previous code stays free forever und that license it was (and can be taken up by others).
2010-06-19 13:38 <dba> from a contibutors point of view to that code, who is not interested nor able to sustain further development efforts on it,
2010-06-19 13:38 <cedk> dba: yes but the cost to make proprietary is much bigger in second case
2010-06-19 13:38 <dba> in practise, it doesn't make much of a difference.
2010-06-19 13:38 <dba> the result i meann.
2010-06-19 13:38 <cedk> dba: I'm pretty sure it does
2010-06-19 13:38 <cedk> dba: look at the difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL (in community point of view)
2010-06-19 13:39 <dba> cedk: the result, not the cause or likeliness htat it's going proprietary.
2010-06-19 13:39 <cedk> dba: nobody will "buy" PostgreSQL
2010-06-19 13:40 <dba> cedk: oh dear, read again.. in both cases i mentioned above, the entity is not releasing any new rlease that is free.
2010-06-19 13:40 <cedk> dba: yes
2010-06-19 13:40 <sharoon> cedk: will tools.cache take context into consideration when caching?
2010-06-19 13:40 <cedk> dba: do you read of the fear of the buy of MySQL, Compiere etc.
2010-06-19 13:40 <cedk> sharoon: yes
2010-06-19 13:40 <sharoon> thanks
2010-06-19 13:41 <sharoon> i luv tryton
2010-06-19 13:41 <dba> cedk: i think it's not going to go anywhere further. you're always distracting away from the point i'm saying.
2010-06-19 13:41 <dba> s/saying/tryting to make/
2010-06-19 13:42 <cedk> sharoon:
2010-06-19 13:43 <cedk> dba: I understand well that you can not prevent people to write proprietary software but you can make their life hard
2010-06-19 13:45 <sharoon> cedk: one more question, more of a convention.... whats the preferred way of calling a method without cursor and user, but still use cursor and user in the method
2010-06-19 13:46 <cedk> sharoon: I don't understand
2010-06-19 13:47 <sharoon> assume that my method is
2010-06-19 13:47 <sharoon> def do_something(self, arg1, arg2):
2010-06-19 13:47 <sharoon> #do something
2010-06-19 13:47 <sharoon> something requires cursor and user
2010-06-19 13:47 <sharoon> but i dont want to pass them in args because another method calls it in unnamed args
2010-06-19 13:48 <cedk> sharoon: you must pass cursor and user
2010-06-19 13:48 <cedk> sharoon: we will fix this in next release with the cursor-user-context going thread-local
2010-06-19 13:49 <sharoon> ok, no problem
2010-06-19 13:50 <cedk> sharoon: it will be with the transation object we talked last time
2010-06-19 13:50 <sharoon> cedk: got it :)
2010-06-19 13:50 <cedk> the first step to a more Active Record pattern
2010-06-19 14:06 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 14:54 -!- sharoon(~sharoon@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 15:15 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 17:05 -!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 18:14 -!- gremly(~gremly@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 18:15 -!- elbati_(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 18:43 -!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 19:18 -!- heg( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 19:59 -!- plantian( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 20:32 -!- elbati_(~elbati@ has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 22:05 -!- cristi_an(4e144898@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 22:06 <cristi_an> hi
2010-06-19 22:06 <cristi_an> how is going with tryton ?
2010-06-19 22:06 <cristi_an> plans for webinterface ?
2010-06-19 22:24 -!- tekoholic( has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 22:57 -!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton
2010-06-19 23:06 -!- plantian( has joined #tryton

Generated by 2.17.3 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!