Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: ]project-open[ V3.2.Beta4 Released (V3.2 RC 1)

Collapse
Posted by Frank Bergmann on
Hi Malte,

Thanks for your consideration. It's an interesting idea to develop a completely open-source ERP system.

We tried that in the beginning. However, the idea didn't really work out for us, because we've found that ERP-like stuff is 1.) too boring for any volunteer to help, 2.) mostly too complex for a truely distributed OSS development process and 3.) OSS dynamics don't work well amongst companies that compete against each other.

Concerning your collaboration options: I'd be happy to collaborate with you on our GPLed modules, that's why we've GPLed them... In particular "DynFields" could be a good candidate for that. However, knowing about Cognovis' past track record and the fact that we're going to compete directly with each other (please see futher below) I ask you to choose option c) for everything else.

Here is the list of our GPLed packages:
- intranet-bug-tracker
- intranet-core
- intranet-dynfield
- intranet-crm-tracking
- intranet-spam
- intranet-payments
- intranet-timesheet
- intranet-timesheet2
- intranet-hr
- intranet-wiki
- intranet-search-pg

if we were to include your dynfields work in OpenACS,
would you be interested in collaboratively maintaining
it there or is your preference to keep the source code
close?

We'd be interested to see "DynFields" as part of the OpenACS core. This is where it actually should be, and how it has been planned right from the the beginning. We basicly tried to complete the partially developed OpenACS "SQL metadata system" (acs_attributes table etc.) and to make it useful for real-world applications.

But yes, DynFields is kind of obscure (we had to implement a lot of stuff in very short time) so that I doubt whether it has the quality to go into the OpenACS kernel right now. It's really a complex area, and there are some good reasons why the ACS 4.0 developers didn't finish the package...

P.S.: Does setting up a demo server with PO constitute
a violation of the license rules for the open source /
non GPL modules?

I guess you're fine to setup a demo server...

In http://www.cognovis.de/referenzen/successstories/e4 you say that you have been granted the right to commercially exploit ("vermarkten") the result of the "E4" project, so I have to admit that it appears kind of "funny" to me to see a competior asking us for permission to setup a system basicly in order to show his customers what exactly he's going to copy and reimplement for them.

Wouldn't it be better to accept that ERP software isn't very suitable for the "pure" OSS model, and to go together with us for a sustainable solution? There are many examples that show that service companies (and all "pure" OSS companies are service companies...) are not suitable to maintain a "product" (because a service company can't eliminate their own revenue stream if they'd really streamline their product to reduce training, customization and installation services).

Bests,
Frank

Collapse
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on
A little bit of background on this story (take a look at http://e4.cognovis.de to see what the project is all about).

The E4 project aims to provide a collaboration platform for clusters and virtual organizations with a focus on finding the right partners (take your freelancer module and enhance it by automatically filled in Key Performance Indicators) and allowing them to coordinate using a collaborative project management system which will feed into a multitude of PM systems actually installed at the clients site. It is explicitly *NOT* an ERP solution, and definitely not target towards service companies. Meaning, any of your products and customers you are targeting is nothing the E4 system will deal with.

For a complete open source ERP solution, look at http://www.tooleast.org/. Again, focus is on manufacturing, not services. Still they need project management and suppliers.

As written, our goal is exploitation of the final result of the product. Due to the fact that none of the development partners had a solution for CRM and project management, I got OpenACS based CRM and PM into it, as I knew it well and know that it meets the criteria. The question is now only, should we really use this or use something else for the final product and who will maintain the CRM and PM part taking into account that we are not a full development partner in this project.

With regards to the demo server: I could not find one of the 3.2 version on your site and I am going to talk about process oriented project management at an ERP conference tomorrow in Switzerland where I will show what we are doing in the E4 project and what OpenACS has to offer with that regard. I assumed it would be nice to mention and maybe show the latest version of ProjectOpen there as well. So it is not at all related to the E4 project and although an understandable assumption (we demo something we will "lend" from projectopen), this is neither the intention nor the case here. But well, too late anyway now...

For the record, I don't see PO as a competitor as they are selling a product. Sadly reselling this product is costly (20% from the total revenue generated with the client, Frank, correct me if something changed from our discussions), especially if you need to do a lot of modifications.