1. Mailing Lists
  2. Contributors
  3. Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server

Contributors mailing list archives

contributors@odoo-community.org

Browse archives

Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server

Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server

Avatar

Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server

by
Raphaël Akretion
- 08/09/2025 15:19:19
Hello a few comments:

1) it should be noticed that some OCA users would prefer LGPL. While important modules authors generally prefer AGPL... Well it doesn't really matter if some users prefer free beers, what matters is mostly how modules author think the rules are fair for them to be able to invest time and money in all that. Otherwise, without modules author, there is no such an OCA ecosystem period.

That been said I think some simple commodity framework modules are better under LGPL license to increase adoption instead of being simply copied in illegal ways. But of course this decision belongs to the authors themselves.

2) about double licencing with money: money allocation would be a source of tension/fight if that money had to be allocated to each individual contributor of the module... So we could imagine it could go to the OCA instead. But let's not forget OCA funding produce probably less than 1% of the value of the OCA ecosystem. 99% or more is provided by people/company writting modules and maintaining code without receiving a cent from the OCA and it will likely remain so. So if such a paid double license were to happen, I think it should be an opti-in from module authors. Otherwise modules authors would simply get their AGPL protection highjacked.

Debian buget is around 100k USD/year I think. It doesn't prevent Debian from being a very important and successful Linux distribution. So the OCA can be successful without pretending to fund more than 1% of its ecosystem value, it should focus on providing the infrastructure for the collaboration.

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025, 9:52 AM sylvain.legal@grap.coop <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

Hi all ! 

Hope you're well.

I just had an idea regarding that recurring topic about licences. (It's a draft idea ! maybe it's not a great idea ! but well)

What about to have all OCA modules under double licences ? 
(See : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing)

- A licence AGPL. Can be installed on all odoo instances, but if modules depends on it, there have to be AGPL too. (contamination concept).

- another licence that allows extra non AGPL modules to depends on it, but it is paid, OCA receiving the money.

Use case 1 : you are a full OpenSource player, you install all the modules under AGPL licence  and you develop also under AGPL licence, so you redistribute all the work. (no changes)

Use Case 2 : You develop extra modules under privative licence that don't depend on OCA modules. you can install your private modules and the OCA AGPL modules on the same instance. (no changes)

Use Case 3 : You develop extra modules under privative licence that depends on OCA modules. You give some money to the OCA, that can continue to maintain that great work, over the years ! (new possibility)

Pro :

- some recurring revenu for OCA, specially for "core" OCA modules. I mean, web_responsive, report_xlsx, etc... (for exemple) are modules installed in most of customer instances, because there are "must have".

- People that are using OCA modules contributes with code (derivated module under AGPL, like Tecnativa / GRAP / others actors) or money otherwise.

- People who develop modules under the OCA do not feel that others are benefiting from them without contributing in return.

- We provide a legal solution for many "closed sources" actors. (for the time being, I'm pretty sure that some OCA AGPL modules are installed with licence infringement) on many instances, because there is no solution (except redevelop the whole module, of course).

- I talked many times with integrators that says that their customer doesn't want to share under AGPL licence the modules they pay. For the time being, there are no incitation to do it. But if tomorrow, there is maybe, more modules will be shared under AGPL ressources, that is great for Open Source Ecosystem.

Cons :

- I haven't thought about it, but there surely are !

Questions : 

@Jean-Charles Drubay, (and @other people in the same case) : you mentioned some modules (web_timeline, report_xlsx, etc..) you want to see under LGPL license to be able, to depend on it, in custom private modules. (I guess) Do you think that your customers could be agree to pay some euros per monthes for such features ? (In return, these modules would certainly be better maintained and migrated more quickly.)


Shall we meet up for a beer and a chat ?

See you on Sunday and the next week for some of you.


Le Lundi, Septembre 08, 2025 13:57 CEST, Ivan Sokolov via Cetmix OÜ <notifications@odoo-community.org> a écrit:
 

Internal communication: Once again, as proposed above, I would suggest to have licenses based on module nature:Core modules, eg widgets, api's, helpers - LGPL. Why? [...] ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

Once again, as proposed above, I would suggest to have licenses based on module nature:

  • Core modules, eg widgets, api's, helpers - LGPL. Why? Because it helps to widespread them being used as core parts in various deployments, including close-sourced. Pros: it builds vendors dependency forcing those non-OCA vendors to contribute to the OCA (well, at least part of them).
  • Business flow modules should stay AGPL for the very reasons mentioned by Pedro and Enric.

Bonus: we might consider selling a non-AGPL licenses to those, who would like to have some AGPL modules but cannot use them due to the license incompatibility. Pros: we can get money from that. Cons: there are a lot of them either, so this is something to be discussed separately. Anyway I would like to have this discussion opened.

 

Best regards,

photograph
Ivan Sokolov
Cetmix Odoo Solutions
cetmix.com
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram 
This message is sent using Mail Messages Easy app

 

----- Original message -----
Date: Sep 8, 2025, 1:32:07 PM
From: Notifications
Subject: Re: Licence question: using AGPL and Odoo proprietary modules on the same server
 
Hello everyone,
 
You’re right that Odoo’s relicensing from AGPL to LGPL contributed to their ecosystem’s growth, but I think it’s important to recognize the context. The growth was not solely because of LGPL being “friendlier,” but also because Odoo SA introduced a dual licensing model: they offered parts of the code under a proprietary license and could directly capture revenue from that. This created a business incentive that supported their expansion.

In the OCA’s case, the situation is different:
  • If we moved from AGPL to LGPL, there would be no equivalent proprietary licensing model.
  • The benefits would mostly go to implementors who could build proprietary modules on top of LGPL community work.
  • The OCA itself would not receive revenue, nor would it strengthen the community commons — it would only dilute protections for contributors.
Also, the OCA can have legal issue because there are contributors that didn't sign the SLA, as happened with vertical-medical 8 years ago (https://github.com/OCA/vertical-medical/issues/183)
 
That’s why, for us, the decision isn’t only about adoption, but about ensuring contributors’ rights and the long-term sustainability of shared resources.

I agree with you that clearer legal guidance and better communication to customers are necessary, and we should keep pushing for that. But from my perspective, simply shifting to LGPL without a mechanism to capture value (like Odoo SA did) risks weakening the community without strengthening OCA in return. For that reason, I would prefer to leave the decision of the license on each individual when adding a new module.

Best regards,
 
El lun, 8 sept 2025 a las 13:11, Pedro M. Baeza (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
 
 
--
Enric Tobella Alomar
CEO & Founder

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

Powered by Messages Easy Pro

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe



 

_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe

Reference