Tryton Software Foundation : Make your voice heard !

70 views
Skip to first unread message

Nicolas Évrard

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 6:11:30 AM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
Hello,

Yesterday we held the General Meeting of B2CK and the subject of the
Tryton Software Foundation was discussed. Please make your voice heard
and give us your opinion on this subject so that the foundation's
status are the result of a community process.

- The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation will
not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.
- The foundation will have a minimal board for the day to day
organisation. The board will be elected amongst members on a
yearly basis.
- The foundation has two kind of membership: members and sponsors.
- Members are the one that have a voice in the foundation
elections.
- Members can be people or companies.
- The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
This fee is higher when the member is a company.
- To became a member someone/the company has to follow this
scheme:
- Being proposed by one (or maybe more) of the actual members
- Being accepted after a vote at the majority of voters
- Members can be excluded after a vote at a special majority (to
be defined)
- Documents and other things created by the foundation must be
released under a free licence (the definition of free is the one
of the FSF).
- Status can be change after a vote at a special majority (to be
defined)

Once a consensus has been reached on the foundation status we will
meet our lawyer and see if everything we want is possible according to
the belgian/european laws ;). I suppose he will come with some changes
which we will talk about here (it's obvious but sometimes it is better
to say it).

--
Nicolas Évrard

B2CK SPRL
rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
E-mail/Jabber: nicolas...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 9:09:29 AM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:11 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Yesterday we held the General Meeting of B2CK and the subject of the
> Tryton Software Foundation was discussed. Please make your voice heard
> and give us your opinion on this subject so that the foundation's
> status are the result of a community process.
>
> - The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
> participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation will
> not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.

Isn't there a larger organisation/foundation that Tryton can be part of?
What are the advantages of forming 'yet another' Foundation?

note: I'm not in opposition. I'm just curious.

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 10:09:20 AM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com

And which Foundation do you think will promote Tryton?

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

zodman

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 12:11:21 PM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
I think another foundation not will do the same. is best tryton have his own small foundation.
--
Andres Vargas
www.zodman.com.mx

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 12:17:29 PM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 25/06/11 11:11 -0500, zodman wrote:
> I think another foundation not will do the same. is best tryton have his own
> small foundation.
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Cédric Krier <cedric...@b2ck.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25/06/11 15:09 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:11 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday we held the General Meeting of B2CK and the subject of the
> > > > Tryton Software Foundation was discussed. Please make your voice heard
> > > > and give us your opinion on this subject so that the foundation's
> > > > status are the result of a community process.
> > > >
> > > > - The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
> > > > participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation
> > will
> > > > not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.
> > >
> > > Isn't there a larger organisation/foundation that Tryton can be part of?
> > > What are the advantages of forming 'yet another' Foundation?
> >
> > And which Foundation do you think will promote Tryton?
> >

Please don't top-post.

http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php#toppost

zodman

unread,
Jun 25, 2011, 12:37:50 PM6/25/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
@ced gmail web client do the top-posting sorry .. so a lot of user use it. i will try to not do top-posting

--
Andres Vargas
www.zodman.com.mx

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 6:00:10 AM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 16:09 +0200, Cédric Krier wrote:
> On 25/06/11 15:09 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:11 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Yesterday we held the General Meeting of B2CK and the subject of the
> > > Tryton Software Foundation was discussed. Please make your voice heard
> > > and give us your opinion on this subject so that the foundation's
> > > status are the result of a community process.
> > >
> > > - The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
> > > participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation will
> > > not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.
> >
> > Isn't there a larger organisation/foundation that Tryton can be part of?
> > What are the advantages of forming 'yet another' Foundation?
>
> And which Foundation do you think will promote Tryton?

I don't know. I didn't do any research. I was just asking. Have you guys
had a look at what's available?

Jordi Esteve

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 11:40:44 AM6/26/11
to tryton
Good initiative. We (Zikzakmedia SL) think that Tryton needs to have
his own foundation, so the project itself will not be controlled by a
single/few company or individual in the future. In fact, we and other
Spanish companies are evaluating the convenience to start working with
this nice project that Tryton is, and start developing Spanish
localization modules, depending on the creation of this foundation. We
would like to avoid the blocking practices that other free licence
ERPs have because they don't have any foundation that controls their
strategic policy.

Our opinion between lines:

>       - The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
>         participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation will
>         not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.

+1

>       - The foundation will have a minimal board for the day to day
>         organisation. The board will be elected amongst members on a
>         yearly basis.

+1

>       - The foundation has two kind of membership: members and sponsors.

+1

>       - Members are the one that have a voice in the foundation
>         elections.

+1

>       - Members can be people or companies.

Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.

>       - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
>         This fee is higher when the member is a company.

We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.

>       - To became a member someone/the company has to follow this
>         scheme:
>           - Being proposed by one (or maybe more) of the actual members
>           - Being accepted after a vote at the majority of voters

+1

>       - Members can be excluded after a vote at a special majority (to
>         be defined)

+1

>       - Documents and other things created by the foundation must be
>         released under a free licence (the definition of free is the one
>         of the FSF).

+1

>       - Status can be change after a vote at a special majority (to be
>         defined)

I don't understand this last point. Status of what can be changed?

The important think in the creation of the foundation is that a single
company could no block the strategic policy of Tryton in the future.

And thanks for this nice piece of code that Tryton is becoming and for
starting the debate of Tryton foundation,

Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 12:21:59 PM6/26/11
to tryton
On 26/06/11 08:40 -0700, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> >       - Members can be people or companies.
>
> Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
> foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
> companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
> way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
> companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.

I don't understand the fear of companies.
Even if we do like you want, we will have members pushed by companies.
So I think it is better that everybody play the game openly.

> >       - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
> >         This fee is higher when the member is a company.
>
> We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
> The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
> tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.

Having to pay for membership is a good way to have only involved members
and also ensure the funding of the foundation.
Also this eases to know when members resign.

Using the meritocracy for membership is strange. As the foundation goals is
to promote Tryton, so the meritocracy will be the guys who are doing the best
promotion. This sounds strange.

> >       - Status can be change after a vote at a special majority (to be
> >         defined)
>
> I don't understand this last point. Status of what can be changed?

I'm not sure that "status" is the right word in English.
But this is how the foundation can modify its own rules.

> The important think in the creation of the foundation is that a single
> company could no block the strategic policy of Tryton in the future.

Indeed, right now the project is already protected due to the variety of
copyright owners.
There is just some potential concern about the ownership of the trademark
Tryton (even if B2CK has already defined the usage of it).

But I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "strategic policy"?

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Nicolas Évrard

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 3:49:26 PM6/26/11
to tryton
* Jordi Esteve [2011-06-26 17:40 +0200]:
>Good initiative. We (Zikzakmedia SL) think that Tryton needs to have
>his own foundation, so the project itself will not be controlled by a
>single/few company or individual in the future. In fact, we and other
>Spanish companies are evaluating the convenience to start working
>with this nice project that Tryton is, and start developing Spanish
>localization modules,

Good to ear that. We're looking forward for this time to come since
the spanish community looks like one of the most active and
technically sound community of OpenERP.

>depending on the creation of this foundation. We would like to avoid
>the blocking practices that other free licence ERPs have because they
>don't have any foundation that controls their strategic policy.

I must say that since a large part of the copyright is held both by
Tiny SPRL, B2CK and other members of the community and change in the
license is, in my opinion, impossible. So this issue is already
solved.

But anyway, the creation of the foundation will help prove that Tryton
is really a community project rather than a one-man job with a bit of
help from everywhere.

> ...


>
>Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
>foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
>companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
>way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
>companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.

I think that it is more transparent to allow people to display their
affiliation.

An interesting question is whether we should limit the number of
member coming from one company.

>>       - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
>>         This fee is higher when the member is a company.
>
>We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.

On a second though I must say that I think there is a small issue with
a paying membership : what happens for people of developing
countries ? 100 € per year is not that much for someone from Europe
but would this amount prevent people from less rich countries to join
the foundation ?

Should we have a system to reduce their fees ?

>The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
>tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.

As Cédric said a choice on merit is hard regarding the foundation
purposes.

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 4:12:20 PM6/26/11
to tryton
On 26/06/11 21:49 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> * Jordi Esteve [2011-06-26 17:40 +0200]:
> >>      - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
> >>        This fee is higher when the member is a company.
> >
> >We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
>
> On a second though I must say that I think there is a small issue with
> a paying membership : what happens for people of developing
> countries ? 100 € per year is not that much for someone from Europe
> but would this amount prevent people from less rich countries to join
> the foundation ?
>
> Should we have a system to reduce their fees ?

I don't think we should try to have everybody in the foundation, there is many
other places where people can contribute to the project.
You will always have people complain that the price will be to high etc.
But as a foundation we will have fees and we would have to pay it.

And finnally, there will be the sponsor program where anyone could donate the
amount he want/can.

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Syed Shahrukh Hussain

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 4:23:08 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
Yes the Tryton Software Foundation is really a good initiative.

What i be expect from Tryton Software Foundation is accelerated development of modules. Facelift of the tryton as a community and member collaboration in big projects and developer repository for selling addon's on a nominal price.

I belong to a developing country, yes member ship fee is an issue.

But on the other side, we pay for hosting websites on a yearly basis which cost from 70-100$, and it depends on how reasonable the hosting is, you can get a garage hosting for less than 15$ a year too but that's not practical.


--



--
Shahrukh Hussain
Consultant
Abydeen Business Consulting

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 4:33:59 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 27/06/11 01:23 +0500, Syed Shahrukh Hussain wrote:
> Yes the Tryton Software Foundation is really a good initiative.
>
> What i be expect from Tryton Software Foundation is accelerated development
> of modules.

Perhaps, but it is not the main goal. It is the community who does the
development.

> Facelift of the tryton as a community and member collaboration
> in big projects

I don't understand.

> and developer repository for selling addon's on a nominal
> price.

This is absolutly out of the scope of the foundation.

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Syed Shahrukh Hussain

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 4:42:39 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
Facelift of the tryton as a community and member collaboration
in big projects


Its like provide some sort of collaboration mechanism for projects, Yes like a previous thread  which was talking about a real management system. Well tryton a community can initiate such project. Or atleast have some case studies listed on the website. I am pretty sure there is lots of information there, it just management of that content. I mean as the foundation will be generating revenue why not start such initiatives.

Like
It can be a smaller version of google summer code?

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 4:54:33 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 27/06/11 01:42 +0500, Syed Shahrukh Hussain wrote:
> *Facelift of the tryton as a community and member collaboration
> in big projects*

>
> Its like provide some sort of collaboration mechanism for projects, Yes like
> a previous thread which was talking about a real management system. Well
> tryton a community can initiate such project. Or atleast have some case
> studies listed on the website. I am pretty sure there is lots of information
> there, it just management of that content.

But it is already the case, see the blueprint on the wiki.

> I mean as the foundation will be
> generating revenue why not start such initiatives.

We don't have yet any money that you already want to spend it.

Just for information in 3 years, we only sold 1 T-shirts. So it is not with
this kind of revenue we can pay the infrastructure. So I don't expect to get
far more revenue with the foundation.

Syed Shahrukh Hussain

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 5:31:16 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
We don't have yet any money that you already want to spend it.

Maybe its normal for newcomer to experience a pre-mature realization.

I don't have an extensive experience in developing ERP applications, i just write code. That's why i asked for the case studies.I didn't find the blueprint much helpful.

But what i know about true open source ERP , there no such application like Tryton out there!


Just for information in 3 years, we only sold 1 T-shirts. So it is not with
this kind of revenue we can pay the infrastructure. So I don't expect to get
far more revenue with the foundation.

I am in no place to answer this, but consider me candidate for a nominal membership fee.

Sharoon Thomas

unread,
Jun 26, 2011, 8:07:54 PM6/26/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 27, 2011, at 2:24 AM, Cédric Krier wrote:

On 27/06/11 01:42 +0500, Syed Shahrukh Hussain wrote:
*Facelift of the tryton as a community and member collaboration
in big projects*

Its like provide some sort of collaboration mechanism for projects, Yes like
a previous thread  which was talking about a real management system. Well
tryton a community can initiate such project. Or atleast have some case
studies listed on the website. I am pretty sure there is lots of information
there, it just management of that content.

But it is already the case, see the blueprint on the wiki.

I mean as the foundation will be
generating revenue why not start such initiatives.

We don't have yet any money that you already want to spend it.

Just for information in 3 years, we only sold 1 T-shirts. So it is not with
this kind of revenue we can pay the infrastructure. So I don't expect to get
far more revenue with the foundation.

This is interesting for me, because this makes me the only proud owner of the Tryton T-Shirt!!


--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4
4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59
Email/Jabber: cedric...@b2ck.com
Website: http://www.b2ck.com/

--
Sharoon Thomas

OPENLABS TECHNOLOGIES & CONSULTING (P) LIMITED
Global Delivery Centre :JSSATE-STEP,C-20/1,Sec-62, Noida - 201306, U.P,India
Regd. Address :2J,Skyline Daffodil,Petta,Tripunithura,Kochi - 682301,Kerala, India

PGP.sig

Jordi Esteve

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 6:06:48 AM6/27/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
En/na Cédric Krier ha escrit:
On 26/06/11 08:40 -0700, Jordi Esteve wrote:
  
      - Members can be people or companies.
      
Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.
    
I don't understand the fear of companies.
Even if we do like you want, we will have members pushed by companies.
So I think it is better that everybody play the game openly.
  
IMHO, as the foundation should work in an ethic way, people can be more ethical than companies (not always, it is easy to find ethical companies and not ethical people ;-). Take in mind that all companies want to be profitable, and some times this corrupts them.

Obviously, in the ERP world, most people comes from companies, so they must public show from which company they come.

I think we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in companies and the other in individuals that represents these companies.



      - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
        This fee is higher when the member is a company.
      
We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.
    
Having to pay for membership is a good way to have only involved members
and also ensure the funding of the foundation.
Also this eases to know when members resign.
  
The two options have their pros and cons. We think is better that some people make the decisions of the foundation (members) and other fund the foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money. For example, should be avoid that members who pay, or who pay more than others, have more power in their decisions/votes.



Using the meritocracy for membership is strange. As the foundation goals is
to promote Tryton, so the meritocracy will be the guys who are doing the best
promotion. This sounds strange.

  
Yes, you are right, meritocracy is not the right word in this context. I meant "participation" or "implication" in the tryton project to choose the members of Tryton foundation.




  
      - Status can be change after a vote at a special majority (to be
        defined)
      
I don't understand this last point. Status of what can be changed?
    
I'm not sure that "status" is the right word in English.
But this is how the foundation can modify its own rules.
  

Yes, of course, the foundation must be able to modify his own rules if a majority of members (defined by the foundation rules) vote it.



The important think in the creation of the foundation is that a single
company could no block the strategic policy of Tryton in the future.
    
Indeed, right now the project is already protected due to the variety of
copyright owners.
  
Yes, the code is protected but there are other important things that must be protected: Tryton trademark/brand, logo, domains, documentation, ... See below.


There is just some potential concern about the ownership of the trademark
Tryton (even if B2CK has already defined the usage of it).

But I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "strategic policy"?
  
I'm not sure if "strategic policy" of the foundation is the more appropriate English word. I put some examples of goals that Tryton foundation could have:

* Promote usage of Tryton application platform.

* Encourage new companies and individuals to join the project.

* Legally protect the brand and the software.

* Help the project to keep open and non-dependant on a single company.

* Own the Tryton brand

* Own tryton.org and other related domains


* Also Tryton foundation could provide/host all the tools that the Tryton developers need (code, bugs, blogs, email lists, ...).


Jordi
-- 
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
jes...@zikzakmedia.com
Mòbil 679 170 693

Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108

Jordi Esteve

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 6:42:37 AM6/27/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
En/na Nicolas �vrard ha escrit:

> * Jordi Esteve [2011-06-26 17:40 +0200]:
>> depending on the creation of this foundation. We would like to avoid
>> the blocking practices that other free licence ERPs have because they
>> don't have any foundation that controls their strategic policy.
>
> I must say that since a large part of the copyright is held both by
> Tiny SPRL, B2CK and other members of the community and change in the
> license is, in my opinion, impossible. So this issue is already
> solved.
>
Your are talking only about code, but there are other important things
that must be protected: Tryton trademark/brand, logo, domains,
documentation, ...

>> ...
>>
>> Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
>> foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
>> companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
>> way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
>> companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.
>
> I think that it is more transparent to allow people to display their
> affiliation.

Of course, as I said before: In the ERP world, most people comes from

companies, so they must public show from which company they come.

>


> An interesting question is whether we should limit the number of
> member coming from one company.

Yes, this is a must, because a single company should no block the
foundation decisions.


>>> - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
>>> This fee is higher when the member is a company.
>>
>> We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
>
> On a second though I must say that I think there is a small issue with
> a paying membership : what happens for people of developing

> countries ? 100 � per year is not that much for someone from Europe


> but would this amount prevent people from less rich countries to join
> the foundation ?
>
> Should we have a system to reduce their fees ?

Yes, this is another problem when you mix the decisions with money. As I
said, it should be avoid that members who pay, or who pay more than

others, have more power in their decisions/votes.

>> The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
>> tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.
>

> As C�dric said a choice on merit is hard regarding the foundation
> purposes.
>


Yes, you are right, meritocracy is not the right word in this context. I
meant "participation" or "implication" in the tryton project to choose

the members of Tryton foundation. I know this is not easy to measure.

Jordi

--

Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL

jes...@zikzakmedia.com
M�bil 679 170 693

Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos

08720 Vilafranca del Pened�s
Tel 93 890 2108

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 7:01:40 AM6/27/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 27/06/11 12:42 +0200, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> En/na Nicolas Évrard ha escrit:

> >* Jordi Esteve [2011-06-26 17:40 +0200]:
> >
> >An interesting question is whether we should limit the number of
> >member coming from one company.
>
> Yes, this is a must, because a single company should no block the
> foundation decisions.

This is fixed by the voting of new members.

It is important to keep things simple (KISS) even in the foundation rules :-)

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 6:32:09 AM6/27/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 27/06/11 12:06 +0200, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> En/na Cédric Krier ha escrit:
> >On 26/06/11 08:40 -0700, Jordi Esteve wrote:
> >>> - Members can be people or companies.
> >>Well, we would like more that members (who have voice in the
> >>foundation elections) were only people and sponsors people or
> >>companies, like other free software foundations like in KDE. In this
> >>way, the foundation has less dependence of the companies, but the
> >>companies can sponsor it getting some public visibility, for example.
> >
> >I don't understand the fear of companies.
> >Even if we do like you want, we will have members pushed by companies.
> >So I think it is better that everybody play the game openly.
> IMHO, as the foundation should work in an ethic way, people can be
> more ethical than companies (not always, it is easy to find ethical
> companies and not ethical people ;-). Take in mind that all
> companies want to be profitable, and some times this corrupts them.
>
> Obviously, in the ERP world, most people comes from companies, so
> they must public show from which company they come.
>
> I think we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in
> companies and the other in individuals that represents these
> companies.

Also we must not forget that employees don't stay indefinitly in a company. So
I think it is good that a company can have a way to keep his voice in the
foundation independently of keeping his representative employee.

> >>> - The members should pay a annual fees to renew their membership.
> >>> This fee is higher when the member is a company.
> >>We think is better that the resources are obtained from the sponsors.
> >>The members must be elected by meritocracy (participation in the
> >>tryton project), not if the can afford or not an annual fee.
> >
> >Having to pay for membership is a good way to have only involved members
> >and also ensure the funding of the foundation.
> >Also this eases to know when members resign.
> The two options have their pros and cons. We think is better that
> some people make the decisions of the foundation (members) and other
> fund the foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with
> money. For example, should be avoid that members who pay, or who pay
> more than others, have more power in their decisions/votes.

Membership fees will be the same for everybody. For those who want to give
more, there will be a donation program.

We should add in the foundation rules, that a member equals to a vote.

> >Using the meritocracy for membership is strange. As the foundation goals is
> >to promote Tryton, so the meritocracy will be the guys who are doing the best
> >promotion. This sounds strange.
> >
> Yes, you are right, meritocracy is not the right word in this
> context. I meant "participation" or "implication" in the tryton
> project to choose the members of Tryton foundation.

This will be done by the exising member proposal and also by the vote.

> >But I'm not sure to understand what you mean by "strategic policy"?
> I'm not sure if "strategic policy" of the foundation is the more
> appropriate English word. I put some examples of goals that Tryton
> foundation could have:
>
> * Promote usage of Tryton application platform.
>
> * Encourage new companies and individuals to join the project.
>
> * Legally protect the brand and the software.
>
> * Help the project to keep open and non-dependant on a single company.

I don't see how ? Indeed it is a fact after the foundation creation, so what
could the foundation do more then just existing ?

> * Own the Tryton brand
>
> * Own tryton.org and other related domains
>
>
> * Also Tryton foundation could provide/host all the tools that the
> Tryton developers need (code, bugs, blogs, email lists, ...).

--

Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 2:00:08 PM6/27/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
I hope it is okay that I respond to a posting a while back in the
discussion, but there were so many comments in the course of the debate
that I wasn't sure where to begin.
I have not really been using Tryton, only experimenting with it, but I
do have some potentially useful experiences from my former work in
not-for-profit, and of course in the Free Software community.
First, the question of representation: My former employer used an
Individual member ($125), Corporate member ($750) and Sustaining member
($2000) structure. Figures just mentioned to indicate the proportions.
A Corporate member would have 4 representatives, a Sustaining member
would have 8. These representatives were allowed to participate in the
events and were treated like 8 Individual members were when it came to
influence. So an organisation would openly be represented by these
members, and this also acknowledged the contribution.
There were no problems with companies sponsoring individual memberships
for one. It did not actually have to be individuals in that respect,
just one-person-memberships.

With a system as Tryton it would make no sense at all to exclude
companies. Noone would be more interested in the evolution of a system
like Tryton.

As for the GPL plugins, I would assume the situation is similar to the
Wordpress discussion:
http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/
The discussion of what constitutes a derivative or tied-in extension is
not particularly easy, but either way: It is only with distribution
that the code requires to go back. If you do consulting for a company
and extend their systems in-house, it would not have this requirement.

Being under a wider umbrella with a wider-reaching foundation does not
make sense if the point is protecting the Tryton brand aspects. It does
make sense to set up a legal entity, however. And there is no problem
with partnering with other foundations for marketing and integration.

Sincerely,
Morten
__
Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér
mj...@syntaktisk.dk * www.syntaktisk.dk

liebana

unread,
Jun 27, 2011, 7:02:12 PM6/27/11
to tryton
Hi,

I'm really happy with this discussion, so first of all I want to thank
you all for the iniciative. The words from Jordi are like mine too:
he's an strong believer of pure open-source projects and his company
has already prove that in the OpenERP community. So everything I agree
in everything he has said, including the way with the roles to be
distinguished: members (users that are strongly involved in the
project) and sponsors (companies or individuals that pay a fee).

Anyway I think we all approve the main purpose for this: prevent a
"lockout" from one single vendor/company and its decissions and to
allow the participants of the project to feel as much comfortable as
possible.

So, my questions:
- Is there any roadmap with the tasks and milestones to accomplish the
foundation? Do you already have any draft document?
- Do you need any legal advice? We have an external lawyer that I'm
sure could help.
- And my last one, have you thought about any particular point
regarding the local communities? I think at least some minimun rules
can be set, and indeed the "heads" from them have to be represented in
a particular way inside the foundation.

Sorry for my English but I'm really tired after a long day :)

Best regards.

On 27 jun, 20:00, Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér

Albert Cervera i Areny

unread,
Jun 28, 2011, 2:39:07 AM6/28/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, Cédric Krier

A Dilluns, 27 de juny de 2011 13:01:40, Cédric Krier va escriure:

> On 27/06/11 12:42 +0200, Jordi Esteve wrote:

> > En/na Nicolas Évrard ha escrit:

> > >* Jordi Esteve [2011-06-26 17:40 +0200]:

> > >

> > >An interesting question is whether we should limit the number of

> > >member coming from one company.

> >

> > Yes, this is a must, because a single company should no block the

> > foundation decisions.

>

> This is fixed by the voting of new members.

>

> It is important to keep things simple (KISS) even in the foundation rules

> :-)


Also, there are other tricks that could be used. Sometimes owners create more than one "legal" company for fiscal reasons, so a company could have more than one voice if they wanted to have more votes.


However, we should try to minimize those worries by making the community (& number of foundation members) huge ;-)


--

Albert Cervera i Areny

http://www.NaN-tic.com

OpenERP Partners

Tel: +34 93 553 18 03


http://twitter.com/albertnan

http://www.nan-tic.com/blog

Advertència Legal: aquest missatge i, en el seu cas, els fitxers adjunts poden contenir informació privada i/o confidencial. Si vostè no és el destinatari del missatge, si us plau, elimini i notifiqui'ns-ho immediatament, no el reenvii ni copi el seu contingut. Si us plau, avisi'ns d'immediat si vostè o la seva empresa no admeten la utilització del correu electrònic via internet per a missatges d'aquest tipus. NaN Projectes de Programari Lliure, S.L. no garanteix la confidencialitat, integritat, rapidesa o correcte recepció del present correu, ni es responsabilitza de possibles perjudicis derivats de la captura, incorporacions de virus o qualsevol altre manipulació efectuada per tercers. No s'autoritza la utilització amb finalitats comercials o per a la seva incorporació a fitxers automatitzats de les direccions de l'emissor o del destinatari.

La informació continguda en aquest missatge de correu electrònic és confidencial i pot revestir el caràcter de reservada. Està dirigida exclusivament a la persona destinatària. L'accés o qualsevol us per part de qualsevol altra persona, no estan autoritzats i poden esdevenir il•legals. Si vostè no és la persona destinatària, li preguem que procedeixi a esborrar-lo i a no fer-ne cap us ni transmetre'l a tercers. Si ho considera oportú pot avisar al remitent que el missatge ha arribat a un destí no desitjat.

Advertencia Legal: este mensaje y, en su caso, los ficheros anexos pueden contener información privilegiada y/o confidencial. Si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje, por favor, bórrelo y notifíquenoslo inmediatamente, no lo reenvíe ni copie su contenido. Por favor, avísenos de inmediato si usted o su empresa no admite la utilización del correo electrónico vía internet para mensajes de este tipo. Nan Projectes de Programari Lliure, S.L. no garantiza la confidencialidad, integridad, rapidez o correcta recepción del presente correo, ni se responsabiliza de posibles perjuicios derivados de la captura, incorporaciones de virus o cualesquiera otras manipulaciones efectuadas por terceros. No se autoriza la utilización con fines comerciales o para su incorporación a ficheros automatizados de las direcciones del emisor o del destinatario.

La información contenida en este mensaje de correo electrónico es confidencial y puede revestir el carácter de reservada. Está dirigida exclusivamente a la persona destinataria. El acceso o cualquier uso por parte de cualquier otra persona, no están autorizados y pueden llegar a ser ilegales. Si usted no es la persona destinataria, le rogamos que proceda a borrarlo y no hacer ningún uso de él ni transmitirlo a terceros. Si lo considera oportuno puede avisar al remitente que el mensaje ha llegado a un destino no deseado.

Albert Cervera i Areny

unread,
Jun 28, 2011, 2:44:36 AM6/28/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, liebana

A Dimarts, 28 de juny de 2011 01:02:12, liebana va escriure:

> So, my questions:

> - Is there any roadmap with the tasks and milestones to accomplish the

> foundation? Do you already have any draft document?


Well, that's what's being discussed :)


> - Do you need any legal advice? We have an external lawyer that I'm

> sure could help.

> - And my last one, have you thought about any particular point

> regarding the local communities? I think at least some minimun rules

> can be set, and indeed the "heads" from them have to be represented in

> a particular way inside the foundation.


I would not personally try to give local communities any kind of special status. After all the Foundation would not probably be much involved in source code. Foundation members will decide who gets in and a local member of a given country should not be accepted just because there's no other member of the foundation from that country. It should be accepted because he/she is commited to the project. (Unless members decide otherwise :)

Jordi Esteve

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 6:36:49 AM6/29/11
to tryton

On 27 Juny, 12:32, Cédric Krier <cedric.kr...@b2ck.com> wrote:

> Also we must not forget that employees don't stay indefinitly in a company. So
> I think it is good that a company can have a way to keep his voice in the
> foundation independently of keeping his representative employee.


Yes, an employee could change the company that belongs to, but he
could remain working for the Tryton project so I think he must not be
forced to leave it. Obviously, if the employee decreases/stops his
implication to the Tryton project, he must leave it (voluntary or as a
decision of the other foundation members in the application of the
tryton foundation rules).

The same applies for the companies. If the company decreases/stops its
implication to the Tryton project, it must leave it. If an employee of
a "Tryton company" leave this company, and the company still works
with Tryton, other employees involved with tryton could ask to be
members of the foundation.

As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in
companies and the other in individuals that represents these
companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of
the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the
foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.

Jordi

Albert Cervera i Areny

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 7:06:35 AM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, Jordi Esteve

A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 12:36:49, Jordi Esteve va escriure:

> As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in

> companies and the other in individuals that represents these

> companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of

> the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the

> foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.


IMHO both things are not incompatible. I think probably most of us will agree that sponsors and members should be separated. So a company may be member but not sponsor and another one may be sponsor but not member. The thing is that if companies were allowed to be members, should they have the same vote than individuals? I think it should be this way.

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 7:12:19 AM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On 29/06/11 13:06 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
> A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 12:36:49, Jordi Esteve va escriure:
> > As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in
> > companies and the other in individuals that represents these
> > companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of
> > the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the
> > foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.
>
> IMHO both things are not incompatible. I think probably most of us will agree
> that sponsors and members should be separated. So a company may be member but
> not sponsor and another one may be sponsor but not member. The thing is that
> if companies were allowed to be members, should they have the same vote than
> individuals? I think it should be this way.

For me, you can be member and sponsor. I don't see any issue in this.

Albert Cervera i Areny

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 7:44:24 AM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, Cédric Krier

A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 13:12:19, C�dric Krier va escriure:

> On 29/06/11 13:06 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:

> > A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 12:36:49, Jordi Esteve va escriure:

> > > As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in

> > > companies and the other in individuals that represents these

> > > companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of

> > > the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the

> > > foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.

> >

> > IMHO both things are not incompatible. I think probably most of us will

> > agree that sponsors and members should be separated. So a company may be

> > member but not sponsor and another one may be sponsor but not member.

> > The thing is that if companies were allowed to be members, should they

> > have the same vote than individuals? I think it should be this way.

>

> For me, you can be member and sponsor. I don't see any issue in this.


I don't see a problem either, but IMHO they should not be related. (No more "votes" because you pay more).

Jordi Esteve

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 9:31:41 AM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, Cédric Krier
En/na Albert Cervera i Areny ha escrit:

A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 13:12:19, Cédric Krier va escriure:

> On 29/06/11 13:06 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:

> > A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 12:36:49, Jordi Esteve va escriure:

> > > As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in

> > > companies and the other in individuals that represents these

> > > companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of

> > > the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the

> > > foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.

> >

> > IMHO both things are not incompatible. I think probably most of us will

> > agree that sponsors and members should be separated. So a company may be

> > member but not sponsor and another one may be sponsor but not member.

> > The thing is that if companies were allowed to be members, should they

> > have the same vote than individuals? I think it should be this way.

>

> For me, you can be member and sponsor. I don't see any issue in this.


I don't see a problem either, but IMHO they should not be related. (No more "votes" because you pay more).


Exactly, in the case that companies could be members, then, for example:

1 company = 1 vote
1 person (individual member) = 1 vote

regardless if the companies/people are sponsors of the foundation (put more or less money).

And 1 company = 1 vote regardless the number of employees (or tryton skilled employees) of the company (but these tryton employees could be members as individuals, for example).

All the above sentences are only suggestions how could be Tryton foundation to avoid a single and power company/individual take the control of it.

Jordi
-- 
Jordi Esteve
Consultor Zikzakmedia SL
jes...@zikzakmedia.com
Mòbil 679 170 693

Zikzakmedia SL
Dr. Fleming, 28, baixos
08720 Vilafranca del Penedès
Tel 93 890 2108

Nicolas Évrard

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 9:57:07 AM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
* Albert Cervera i Areny [2011-06-29 13:44 +0200]:
>A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 13:12:19, Cédric Krier va escriure:

>> On 29/06/11 13:06 +0200, Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
>> > A Dimecres, 29 de juny de 2011 12:36:49, Jordi Esteve va escriure:
>> > > As I said before, we have a similar opinion, one puts more emphasis in
>> > > companies and the other in individuals that represents these
>> > > companies. We think is better that some people make the decisions of
>> > > the foundation (members) and others, companies or people, fund the
>> > > foundation (sponsors) to avoid mix the decisions with money.
>> >
>> > IMHO both things are not incompatible. I think probably most of us will
>> > agree that sponsors and members should be separated. So a company may be
>> > member but not sponsor and another one may be sponsor but not member.
>> > The thing is that if companies were allowed to be members, should they
>> > have the same vote than individuals? I think it should be this way.
>>
>> For me, you can be member and sponsor. I don't see any issue in this.
>
>I don't see a problem either, but IMHO they should not be related. (No more
>"votes" because you pay more).

It seemed so obvious to me that I did not even think that company
contributing more money should get more vote. But since there is a
misunderstanding we should add that

- Members (individual or company) of the foundation only get one
vote in the voting process.

--
Nicolas Évrard

B2CK SPRL
rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Brian Dunnette

unread,
Jun 29, 2011, 1:08:09 PM6/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com

> Isn't there a larger organisation/foundation that Tryton can be part of?
> What are the advantages of forming 'yet another' Foundation?

And which Foundation do you think will promote Tryton?

One possibility is to join one of the "umbrella" organizations/foundations that provide support to FLOSS projects, such as:
These organizations could provide legal and logistical support (e.g. keeping Tryton's logos, trademarks, etc. legally protected, or helping to organize a Tryton conference!) that the Tryton community (or B2CK) might not be able to provide otherwise, and would (in theory) otherwise allow the project to stick to the business of software...

However, IANAL, and am not sure how useful membership in these (admittedly US-centric) organizations would be for Tryton...

David Mitchell

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 12:11:55 AM7/2/11
to tryton
+1 on the TSF initiative.
There is a lot of value in going this direction.

Some of the umbrella foundations require relicensing prior to joining.
-1

David Mitchell
President
NovaPoint Group LLC

Dominique Chabord

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 5:22:04 AM7/2/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
on this point, there are pros and cons on each side.
I like the idea that members are individuals and commit as such,
whichever company they belong to.
I can understand Cedric opinion too and accept it, but I'd prefer
independent personalities than company representatives.
regards

--
Dominique Chabord - SISalp

Dominique Chabord

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 5:45:15 AM7/2/11
to try...@googlegroups.com

Le 26/06/2011 21:49, Nicolas �vrard a �crit :

>
> On a second though I must say that I think there is a small issue with
> a paying membership : what happens for people of developing

> countries ? 100 � per year is not that much for someone from Europe


> but would this amount prevent people from less rich countries to join
> the foundation ?

I feel comfortable with Jordi's proposal and think the foundation should
be a group of fair people who first contribute by time and personnal
commitment.
Foundation would be funded by companies who decide to donate as a
business decision.
This sounds clean and simple (at least to me).

--
Dominique Chabord - SISalp

Logiciel libre pour l'entreprise : Gestion (ERP) et applications web2
18 avenue Beauregard 74960 Cran Gevrier
145A rue Alexandre Borrely 83000 Toulon
t�l +33(0)950274960 fax +33(0)955274960 mob +33(0)622616438
http://sisalp.fr - http://sisalp.org - http://bdll.fr

Dominique Chabord

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 5:36:24 AM7/2/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
I agree with Albert. Foundation is not community. I prefer committed
individuals than representatives, even from communities

Le 28/06/2011 08:44, Albert Cervera i Areny a �crit :


> A Dimarts, 28 de juny de 2011 01:02:12, liebana va escriure:
>
>> So, my questions:
>
>> - Is there any roadmap with the tasks and milestones to accomplish the
>
>> foundation? Do you already have any draft document?
>
>
> Well, that's what's being discussed :)
>
>
>> - Do you need any legal advice? We have an external lawyer that I'm
>
>> sure could help.
>
>> - And my last one, have you thought about any particular point
>
>> regarding the local communities? I think at least some minimun rules
>
>> can be set, and indeed the "heads" from them have to be represented in
>
>> a particular way inside the foundation.
>
>
> I would not personally try to give local communities any kind of special
> status. After all the Foundation would not probably be much involved in
> source code. Foundation members will decide who gets in and a local
> member of a given country should not be accepted just because there's no
> other member of the foundation from that country. It should be accepted
> because he/she is commited to the project. (Unless members decide
> otherwise :)
>
>
> --
>
> Albert Cervera i Areny
>
> http://www.NaN-tic.com
>

> OpenERP Partners <http://www.NaN-tic.com>

> Advert�ncia Legal: aquest missatge i, en el seu cas, els fitxers adjunts
> poden contenir informaci� privada i/o confidencial. Si vost� no �s el


> destinatari del missatge, si us plau, elimini i notifiqui'ns-ho
> immediatament, no el reenvii ni copi el seu contingut. Si us plau,

> avisi'ns d'immediat si vost� o la seva empresa no admeten la utilitzaci�
> del correu electr�nic via internet per a missatges d'aquest tipus. NaN


> Projectes de Programari Lliure, S.L. no garanteix la confidencialitat,

> integritat, rapidesa o correcte recepci� del present correu, ni es


> responsabilitza de possibles perjudicis derivats de la captura,

> incorporacions de virus o qualsevol altre manipulaci� efectuada per
> tercers. No s'autoritza la utilitzaci� amb finalitats comercials o per a
> la seva incorporaci� a fitxers automatitzats de les direccions de


> l'emissor o del destinatari.
>

> La informaci� continguda en aquest missatge de correu electr�nic �s
> confidencial i pot revestir el car�cter de reservada. Est� dirigida
> exclusivament a la persona destinat�ria. L'acc�s o qualsevol us per part


> de qualsevol altra persona, no estan autoritzats i poden esdevenir

> il�legals. Si vost� no �s la persona destinat�ria, li preguem que


> procedeixi a esborrar-lo i a no fer-ne cap us ni transmetre'l a tercers.

> Si ho considera oport� pot avisar al remitent que el missatge ha arribat
> a un dest� no desitjat.


>
> Advertencia Legal: este mensaje y, en su caso, los ficheros anexos

> pueden contener informaci�n privilegiada y/o confidencial. Si usted no
> es el destinatario del mensaje, por favor, b�rrelo y notif�quenoslo
> inmediatamente, no lo reenv�e ni copie su contenido. Por favor, av�senos
> de inmediato si usted o su empresa no admite la utilizaci�n del correo
> electr�nico v�a internet para mensajes de este tipo. Nan Projectes de


> Programari Lliure, S.L. no garantiza la confidencialidad, integridad,

> rapidez o correcta recepci�n del presente correo, ni se responsabiliza


> de posibles perjuicios derivados de la captura, incorporaciones de virus
> o cualesquiera otras manipulaciones efectuadas por terceros. No se

> autoriza la utilizaci�n con fines comerciales o para su incorporaci�n a


> ficheros automatizados de las direcciones del emisor o del destinatario.
>

> La informaci�n contenida en este mensaje de correo electr�nico es
> confidencial y puede revestir el car�cter de reservada. Est� dirigida


> exclusivamente a la persona destinataria. El acceso o cualquier uso por

> parte de cualquier otra persona, no est�n autorizados y pueden llegar a


> ser ilegales. Si usted no es la persona destinataria, le rogamos que

> proceda a borrarlo y no hacer ning�n uso de �l ni transmitirlo a


> terceros. Si lo considera oportuno puede avisar al remitente que el
> mensaje ha llegado a un destino no deseado.
>

> --
> try...@googlegroups.com mailing list

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 6:34:38 AM7/2/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 15:09 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 12:11 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Yesterday we held the General Meeting of B2CK and the subject of the
> > Tryton Software Foundation was discussed. Please make your voice heard
> > and give us your opinion on this subject so that the foundation's
> > status are the result of a community process.
> >
> > - The foundation aims are to promote Tryton: do marketing stuffs,
> > participate in booth, sponsors developments. The foundation will
> > not have its word on the technical side of Tryton.

>
> Isn't there a larger organisation/foundation that Tryton can be part of?
> What are the advantages of forming 'yet another' Foundation?
>
> note: I'm not in opposition. I'm just curious.

Watching as this discussion is getting really long, I'm not so sure any
more about my neutral position. I'm thinking that existing foundations
already have these details sorted (they've been around for years after
all). So again, the question (which remains unanswered) is, why 'yet
another' foundation?


Albert Cervera i Areny

unread,
Jul 2, 2011, 6:29:24 PM7/2/11
to try...@googlegroups.com, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe

A Dissabte, 2 de juliol de 2011 12:34:38, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe va escriure:

> On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 15:09 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:

From my point of view, it'd be related to marketing reasons. I think it shows the project is stronger to customers if it has its own foundation instead of relying in another one.


--

Albert Cervera i Areny

http://www.NaN-tic.com

OpenERP Partners

Cédric Krier

unread,
Jul 29, 2011, 6:03:31 AM7/29/11
to try...@googlegroups.com
Hi,

We have taken contact with our lawyer to start a draft proposal that will try
to summary all the discussion.

We will take you in touch.

--
Cédric Krier

B2CK SPRL
Rue de Rotterdam, 4


4000 Liège
Belgium
Tel: +32 472 54 46 59

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages