IRC logs of #tryton for Saturday, 2010-06-19 #tryton log beginning Sat Jun 19 00:00:01 CEST 2010
-!- pepeu(~manuel@ has joined #tryton00:37
-!- juanfer(~juanfer@ has joined #tryton00:45
cedkdba: on the other side, you can see the fact that many people own the copyright of the sotware as a garantee of his freedom00:47
cedkwhen there is only one guys, he can make the next version proprietary00:48
dbacedk: i'm not aware of any european juristiction that garantees that,01:13
dbanot even the u.s. one does it.01:13
dba(remember: copyright != authorship)01:13
-!- plantian( has joined #tryton04:06
-!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton05:09
-!- yangoon( has joined #tryton05:18
-!- mr_amit(~amit@ has joined #tryton06:45
-!- plantian( has left #tryton09:07
-!- sharoon(~sharoon@ has joined #tryton09:26
sharooncan some one help me with caching?09:26
sharoonhow can i use the native cache in tryton?09:27
cedkdba: 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 this09:31
cedksharoon: did you understand?09:44
-!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton09:44
cedkdba: so when people give you their copyright, they must trust you that you will not change the license09:46
cedkdba: of course they can keep also the copyright, it depends of the contract you have with them09:47
cedkdba: but it is the copyright owner that defines the license09:47
Mithrandircedk: 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.09:54
cedkMithrandir: if there is only onw person owning the copyright, he is free to change the licence that all I want to say09:57
cedkMithrandir: and that is why in Tryton we don't impose to give your copyright to someone when contributing09:57
-!- johbo( has joined #tryton09:59
Mithrandircedk: 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 assigned09:59
cedkso 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 it09:59
cedkMithrandir: +110:00
cedkMithrandir: this is my thought that I try to explain to dba10:00
cedkMithrandir: this is linked to this
cedkMithrandir: and to this
sharooncedk sorry was out10:02
Mithrandircedk: that looks like a hornet's nest I won't be going into.10:07
cedkMithrandir: you speak about the issue?10:07
Mithrandirthe discussion about whether to allow people to use shared accounts or not, which is basically what I understand it's about.10:08
cedkMithrandir: there is that but also the name10:09
cedkMithrandir: and the usage of tryton.fr10:09
Mithrandiryeah, that I can see as being problematic.10:09
-!- Timitos(~timitos@ has joined #tryton10:10
cedkMithrandir: that is why I setup a polls10:11
-!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton11:35
-!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton11:42
-!- enlightx( has joined #tryton12:41
-!- janmalte(~quassel@ has joined #tryton13:00
dbacedk: i'm saying that as soon as you have more than one person holding copyrights,13:14
dbain practise, it's impossible to change the license because there's awlways someone that is not agreeing to changing it13:15
dba(either because he's not willing to, or because he cannot be found/is dead/whatever).13:15
cedkdba: that is why I said it is a garantee13:15
dbawhat garantee?13:16
cedkdba: that the license will stay GPL13:17
cedkdba: take as example OpenERP which only accept OpenERP SA as copyright13:17
cedkdba: OpenERP SA can choose to publish next release on different license13:17
dbacedk: and that's what i said is bad, it's important to be able to adjust the license in some situations13:18
cedkdba: you have no garantee that will not happen13:18
cedkdba: then you must trust the copyright owner13:18
dbai don't trust openerp, but i do trust individual people that i'm working with in the free software community.13:18
cedkdba: ymmv ???13:18
cedkdba: when do you want to adjust the license ?13:19
dbacedk: in cases where it's needed to better protect the freedom of it, e.g. for those reasons the gpl3 was written.13:20
cedkthe only situation, I find it is good to give copyright to someone else is to foundation13:21
cedkdba: Tryton is under GPLv3 or later13:21
dbacedk: men, no hard feelings, but why are you nitpicking on *details* and not getting the picture?13:22
cedkdba: which picture?13:22
dbabefore we had gpl3, and you had a gpl2 software, you could not think of a reason why gpl2 would be perfect for all eternity.13:22
dbathen the world changed (ms-novell deal, patents), and the gpl needed to be adjusted, resulting in gpl3.13:22
cedkdba: that is why we have GPLv3 or later13:23
dbai'm sure there will be a gpl4 in some time, and i'd like to be able to use that license in some time.13:23
dbacedk: again, you're hitting on the detail.13:23
cedkdba: that is why we have GPLv3 or *later*13:23
dbamaybe the world changes so that you need to use a different license, not gpl. so you can't update.13:23
dbathe 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.13:24
Mithrandirdba: you talk about gplv3 as if it's an improvement on gplv2, something quite some people don't agree with.13:25
cedkdba: we will not be able to change the license of Tryton with something other than GPL13:25
cedkdba: because there is Tiny is the copyright13:25
Mithrandircedk: well, "just" rewrite those pieces.13:25
Mithrandirit's just lots of work.13:26
cedkMithrandir: yes that is possible13:26
Mithrandirit's not like it's impossible, just loads and loads of busywork.13:26
dbaMithrandir: that's a different discussion which has nothing to do wit this one.13:26
cedkMithrandir: and we don't need it as GPL is fine13:26
dbacedk: i stated why in *general* i want the ability to change the license.13:26
cedkAll I want to say is that having only one copyright owner, give to this person all the power13:27
Mithrandirconcentration of power is almost always bad.13:27
cedkMithrandir: except if it is a Foundation like FSF or Gentoo where there are rules13:28
Mithrandircedk: don't you think the FSF could be taken over by a company with large resources if they wanted?13:28
cedkMithrandir: no it is a foundation13:29
Mithrandiryes, controlled by its members.13:30
cedkMithrandir: yes and if you want you can become members to have some control :-)13:30
cedkto make a link with current news, the Compiere buy13:31
Mithrandirthe 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.13:31
Mithrandirsure, expensive and a PR disaster, but doable.13:32
dba.oO(i've seen enough examples where foundations and associations haven been destroyed, so i personally don't13:32
cedkit makes people worried because the company owns the copryright13:32
dbatrust anything more *just* by the fact that it's an assoc. or found. but again, ymmv.)13:32
cedkbut if the compiere sahred the copyright of the source with other member such worry will not happen13:33
cedkbut of course buy will not happen also because there will be no value in the company (except the services)13:33
dbain your example, it boils down to this:13:35
dbaif you have shared sources, they need to rewrite things first after the entity has been bought, in order to turn things proprietary.13:35
cedkdba: exactly13:36
dbaif you have non-shared sources (or all copyright holders are agreeing), the entity can start doing priorietary things with the code immediately.13:36
dbabut in both cases, you can't do anything against: a) the free version will not be developed any further by the entity,13:36
dbab) the previous code stays free forever und that license it was (and can be taken up by others).13:37
dbafrom a contibutors point of view to that code, who is not interested nor able to sustain further development efforts on it,13:38
cedkdba: yes but the cost to make proprietary is much bigger in second case13:38
dbain practise, it doesn't make much of a difference.13:38
dbathe result i meann.13:38
cedkdba: I'm pretty sure it does13:38
cedkdba: look at the difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL (in community point of view)13:38
dbacedk: the result, not the cause or likeliness htat it's going proprietary.13:39
cedkdba: nobody will "buy" PostgreSQL13:39
dbacedk: oh dear, read again.. in both cases i mentioned above, the entity is not releasing any new rlease that is free.13:40
cedkdba: yes13:40
sharooncedk: will tools.cache take context into consideration when caching?13:40
cedkdba: do you read of the fear of the buy of MySQL, Compiere etc.13:40
cedksharoon: yes13:40
sharooni luv tryton13:41
dbacedk: i think it's not going to go anywhere further. you're always distracting away from the point i'm saying.13:41
dbas/saying/tryting to make/13:41
cedkdba: I understand well that you can not prevent people to write proprietary software but you can make their life hard13:43
sharooncedk: 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 method13:45
cedksharoon: I don't understand13:46
sharoonassume that my method is13:47
sharoondef do_something(self, arg1, arg2):13:47
sharoon    #do something13:47
sharoon   something requires cursor and user13:47
sharoonbut i dont want to pass them in args because another method calls it in unnamed args13:47
cedksharoon: you must pass cursor and user13:48
cedksharoon: we will fix this in next release with the cursor-user-context going thread-local13:48
sharoonok, no problem13:49
cedksharoon: it will be with the transation object we talked last time13:50
sharooncedk: got it :)13:50
cedkthe first step to a more Active Record pattern13:50
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton14:06
-!- sharoon(~sharoon@ has joined #tryton14:54
-!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton15:15
-!- eLBati(~elbati@ has joined #tryton17:05
-!- gremly(~gremly@ has joined #tryton18:14
-!- elbati_(~elbati@ has joined #tryton18:15
-!- cedk(~ced@gentoo/developer/cedk) has joined #tryton18:43
-!- heg( has joined #tryton19:18
-!- plantian( has joined #tryton19:59
-!- elbati_(~elbati@ has joined #tryton20:32
-!- cristi_an(4e144898@gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #tryton22:05
cristi_anhow is going with tryton ?22:06
cristi_anplans for webinterface ?22:06
-!- tekoholic( has joined #tryton22:24
-!- zodman(~zodman@foresight/developer/zodman) has joined #tryton22:57
-!- plantian( has joined #tryton23:06

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!