Re: OpenERP Webclient proprietär

Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 01:16:39 schrieb David Gerard:
> On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy <hugo@...> wrote:
> > Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
> >> On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis <anh@...> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> >> >> It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary
> >> >> business people do it, like SugarCRM.
> >> >
> >> > Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

I have no good reference for neo-proprietary at hand.
I've meant that those companies are advertising a "free software" edition
and they have a lot of proprietary extensions. Often you only get support
for the proprietary stuff. 

> >> Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd
> >> think.

Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be 
enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.

> > In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
> > Just a guess,
>
> The name changes, the concept remains the same 

Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good 
explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo" 
in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary 
business modell seems to be quite old. Often it went by "dual licensing".
"Open Core" is giving readers the wrong idea, as it sounds positive,
but I have only found uses where it was actually a proprietary business,
not a Free Software based one.

Best,
Bernhard

-- 
FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany                            (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible:  www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html

Am Donnerstag, 23. September 2010 01:16:39 schrieb David Gerard:
> On 22 September 2010 22:51, Hugo Roy <hugo@...> wrote:
> > Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 17:51 +0100, David Gerard a écrit :
> >> On 22 September 2010 17:21, Anastasios Hatzis <anh@...> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 17:12 +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> >> >> It is proprietary business on top. Just like the neo-proprietary
> >> >> business people do it, like SugarCRM.
> >> >
> >> > Bernhard, would you mind explaining "neo-proprietary"? Thanks.

I have no good reference for neo-proprietary at hand.
I've meant that those companies are advertising a "free software" edition
and they have a lot of proprietary extensions. Often you only get support
for the proprietary stuff. 

> >> Technically free software that isn't in practical application, I'd
> >> think.

Your description matches some of the symptoms, but it does not seem to be 
enough to let a reader decide which is "neo-proprietary" or not.

> > In the case of SugarCRM, isn't it about "Open Core"?
> > Just a guess,
>
> The name changes, the concept remains the same 

Yes, some people seems to call stuff "open core". I also do not have a good 
explanation for that term at hand. Just two observations: the "neo" 
in "neo-proprietary" does not seem to fit perfectly, this proprietary 
business modell seems to be quite old. Often it went by "dual licensing".
"Open Core" is giving readers the wrong idea, as it sounds positive,
but I have only found uses where it was actually a proprietary business,
not a Free Software based one.

Best,
Bernhard

--

-- 
FSFE -- Deputy Coordinator Germany                            (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible:  www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html