Under User Pressure, SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Jul 26, 2007 08:28 AM
from the still-a-trickle dept.
from the still-a-trickle dept.
StonyandCher writes "SugarCRM is to adopt version 3 of the GNU general public license for the next release of its open-source CRM software after coming under pressure from its user community to move away from its own Sugar Public License. 'We just think it's a great license,' said John Roberts, SugarCRM CEO and co-founder. 'It's more copyleft, more liberal and less restrictive than our current license.' He added that when the beta version of Sugar Community Edition 5.0 ships within two weeks, it will be licensed under GPLv3."
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Open Source — Selling Software That Sells Itself 39 comments
mrcgran writes to mention that LinuxWorld is running an interview with Alfresco's Matt Asay. "Open source is changing not just how companies make software, but how they sell it. Alfresco's Matt Asay explains the new sales cycle and the skills that today's software sales people need to close deals. [...] 'But you know what? We have worked with Microsoft on interop without doing any sort of a patent deal; as has Sugar and MySQL and Zend and these other companies. We work directly with Microsoft for a customer of ours to insure SQL Server integration with Alfresco. Didn't have to sign any patent deal with them to get that done. We both had a mutual customer. It was in our mutual interest. We both wanted to make money, therefore we did it. But the patent thing is a complete smoke and mirrors, I don't want to say trick, but it has nothing to do with interoperability. No matter how much Microsoft may repeat that, it has nothing to do with interoperability.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
one word... (Score:5, Funny)
SWEET!
Cognitive dissonance? (Score:2)
Re:Cognitive dissonance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ye, since when was "copyleft" a comparative adjective, anyway? I think "We just think it's a great license...more copyleft...less restrictive" was CEO speak for "I haven't read it and I don't understand what a copyright license is (it's something technical). But my people in the know say we've changed ours because there's a new one out with go faster stripes, and my PR people tell me that if I make an announcement about it, it will get the company on /. and help me get a bigger bonus".
BTW, I do support this license move, just commenting on CEOs.
Re:Cognitive dissonance? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you guys who are living a daydream here, but that stuff is hard to do and it's even harder to do well. There's definitely some pork-barrel price-fixing of CEO salaries at some of the larger, more established companies out there, but under no circumstance should you ever get the idea that CEOs are stupid or that delegating responsibility to others more knowledgeable than you in any field is somehow stupid or worth looking down upon.
Programming a computer is not that difficult. You can pretend it is in front of your layman friends, but this is Slashdot -- we all program computers, or at least 90% of us do, so don't think we're going to take your word for it when you wax lyrical about how you need to be a genius to get it done.
Why is it that expertise -- and let's face it, often as not not even real expertise in the case of the average Slashdot reader -- in one field gives people the attitude that they can mouth off about other people? In the US, one of the most entrepreneur-friendly countries in the entire world, only 38% of business are still around after 6 years (Dun & Bradstreet). This is not because people who start businesses are stupid, it's because running a business is hard. Really hard.
If you ran a company, and you tried to be programmer, lawyer, accountant, financial planner, sales rep, and janitor all at once, you know what would happen? Your company would die. Because, despite what you've been told, law is hard. Accounting is hard. Capital budgeting is hard. Sales -- sales is bust ass. And yes, even cleaning the floors carries a tremendous opportunity cost if your other duties include making the company profitable.
Being able to delegate responsibility -- being able to let someone who really knows what they are doing deal with something you yourself don't understand very well -- is one of the hallmarks of a good manager. And if you think that good managers are common, you obviously haven't worked in a corporate setting for very long. Ever had a PHB who knew nothing about what you were the resident expert at and tried to do your job for you? Tried to micromanage you? Did you ever bitch about that?
Because here you are disparaging a CEO because he doesn't (according to you) know the intricacies of copyright law. Well, odds are you haven't the foggiest idea about copyright law either, since you probably aren't a lawyer, and if you think you do because you read Slashdot, then you are sadly mistaken.
Why don't you go try running a business. Working 90 hour weeks for equity at a start up and not just doing the programming but managing the finances and dealing with the VCs and doing the whole shebang before you come here and mouth off about how CEOs are all morons.
There's a reason these guys get paid so much, even at the mid-cap level, and I hate to disappoint you, it's not because of the good old boys network. It's because they know how to generate wealth, and very few people have that skill. They know how to talk to investors, they know how to delegate responsibility, they know how to run the company. They know how to choose an i-bank when it comes time to IPO. They know how to make it work. And you don't. And I know it may hurt your fragile little Slashdotter whiny-nerd ego to admit it, but there are things other than programming that take real skill. Why, there may even be things harder than programming! Imagine that!
(As an aside, I was in Silicon Valley during the bubble, and I saw first hand what happens when programmers start thinking the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love the rant. But, from skim reading it, I understand your main argument is that it isn't the CEO's job to know all about their copyright license (which is probably true*) and my main point was I don't think he's read it before issuing a press release
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it isn't. The 13th Amendement (which abolished slavery in the US, for those of you following along) had the net effect of making "us" more free because it dealt wi
Re:Cognitive dissonance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright law is a restriction on people's ability to distribute information as they see fit. The GPL, as a copyright license, is also a restriction on people's ability to distribute information as they see fit. The only difference is, usual copyright licenses say "you may not redistribute this information unless you pay us for another copy", while the GPL says "you may not redistribute this information unless you also distribute that other information" (the source, and any additions to it). Both of them are placing obligations on people in regard to the conditions under which they are tentatively permitted to redistribute information.
A truly free license would say simply "you may redistribute this information". That's called putting a work in the public domain: you release any claims on it.
To try (poorly) to cram this into your slavery analogy, the GPL would be like saying "that person still belongs to me, however you can do use him to plow your fields, so long as you plow an equal area yourself". True freedom, analogous to the public domain, would say "that person is free; your interactions with him are none of my business". Of course this whole analogy is busted from the start because a freed slave has rights that freed information does not.
Someone who takes open-sourced code and uses it in a closed-source project it not "locking it up". No one is suddenly prevented from using the open-sourced code. It's still out there, the same as before. Maybe someone has refrained from releasing new code they wrote to incorporate with the open-sourced code, but then, what right do you have to see their code? You might want to say "I won't show you my code unless you agree to show me yours", and that's fine, just like saying "I'll teach you tai-chi if you teach me yoga". It's just a contract to perform a service for someone, namely giving them some information, in exchange for another service. However, you cannot (ethically) say "here is my code; you may not make use of this information I have given you unless you also show me your code", any more than you can say "here is how you do tai-chi; you may not practice tai-chi or any variant of if (i.e. tai-chi + yoga) unless you also also offer to teach anyone you perform it for how to do tai-chi or your variant". In short, if you don't want to share your code unless others are going to share back, contract with them ahead of time to exchange code. But if you're just going to give information away freely (i.e distribute it, not keep it secret), you've got no right to tell the recipients of it how they may or may not make use of it.
Permission, or obligation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reads like an infomercial... (Score:5, Funny)
I wrote about this yesterday (Score:5, Informative)
Good also to see even wider GPL v3 adoption!
Re: (Score:2)
Spin: 'Under user pressure...' - submitter
Spin: 'We think it's a great license...' - CEO
News: 'SugarCRM is to adopt version 3 of the GNU general public license for the next release of its open-source
Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
which is it?
Under Pressure? (Score:2)
Above excerpt(s) used under fair use rules as satire.
Finally they've chosen... (Score:4, Insightful)
If even their own community started complaining, then it's about time to either go open or go proprietary. Projects that hang in-between just muddle the waters.
Re: (Score:2)
It was really bad legalese-ridden license. And, yes, with the restrictions on free distribution and the advertising clause (that was worse than the old BSD one), it clearly isn't free or open-source, even if the company claimed that themselves.
BTW, I've
Thanks but No thanks. (Score:4, Informative)
We completely switched to http://www.vtiger.com/ [vtiger.com] as it's 100% open source including the Outlook and office integration.
Yeah, I would prefer that we dont use Look-out and orfice at work, but teaching sales people slightly different tasks is like having a spike driven through your skull.
Hey, waitasec... (Score:3, Interesting)
And hasn't MS said that it will have nothing to do with GPLv3?
Wooooo... INCOMING!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GPL Converts. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well good for them, then... This still isn't frontpage news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the pattern
"Look at this Shiny, will anyone use it?"
"Entity X is using Shiny"
"People are using Shiny"
"What are you using Shiny for?"
"Problem in Shiny, new
Re:GPL Converts. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm gald to know we will get an article when a project that used a license that barely qualified as OSS but uses all the latest buzzwords and marketing to look like OSS switches to the GPLv3.
Re: (Score:2)
CRM, I'd imagine.
There is a market for Linux-based
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we did for every user that bought an iPhone...
Re:GPL Converts. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL license is always a legalese means to a concrete end, as explained in FSF's definition of free software. [gnu.org] This definition is what you might consider as the true and only "ideal GPL", of which the specific licenses are mere material expressions:
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
So, whenever someone discover a way around the "spirit" of any of the four freedoms while still complying with the "letter" of the most recent version of the license, a new license is devised to close that hole and keep the spirit intact.In the specific case of GPLv3, what was corrected was the hole that allowed a distributor to work its way around the "for any purpose" sentence in freedom 0. A DRM'ed hardware, the means chosen by the distributor do distribute the software, only allows the end user to use that software for certain purposes. "Certain" is always less than "any", and as such, a clear violation of the "ideal GPL".
To make things even more clear, let's abstract it even more. When we think about "software restrictions", we must always make this question: "restrictions to whom?"
Any piece of software has at least three parties involved: its authors, its distributors, and its end users. Since it's impossible to maximize all of the three, a license will necessarily place different restrictions level on each of the three, maximizing the rights of one while, by definition, reducing those granted to the other two. A typical proprietary license, for instance, maximize the author rights: he can keep the source closed, showing it only to specific persons after they sign extremely restrictive NDAs, all the while being allowed to impose severe distribution conditions to the distributor, and any EULA he wants to the user, up to the extend allowed by law. A BSD license, on the the other hand, maximizes the distributor rights, while minimizing both the author rights (who cannot forbid him from doing whatever he wants with the software) and the end user rights, who can still be subjected to any EULA.
What about the GPL then? Well, the GPL is the license that attempts to maximize the end user rights by restricting both authors rights (to stop redistribution, to restrict who can look and work in the software, from imposing EULAs, etc.) as well as distributors (from imposing EULAs).
So, any time a distributor (the paradigmatic example being Tivo) attempts to impose an indirect EULA to a GPL'ed piece of software, it is in fact violating one of the key elements of what the GPL stands for: end user rights. It's attempting, roughly speaking, to "BSD'ize" GPL. And the GPL will defend itself against this, by closing the hole that allowed it.
The whole point then is: if you, as a distributor, want a software that maximizes your distributor rights while limiting the end user rights, go for a BSD licensed one and never, ever, attempt to make the GPL fit it, because it won't. For the GPL folks the end user always comes first, and you will not be able to avoid them stopping your end-user-limiting business model.
Re:GPL Converts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should someone be able to stop me from doing so?
To date I've not seen any good answer to these questions.
Re: (Score:2)
They moved from their own personal license and from what I can tell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic I could claim trademark on any random word and merely by waiting long enough the trademark would be rewarded to me becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting point, but I think you'll find those people using it are using it in a descriptive sense and don't have a contract with OSI to only use it with OSI's permission or even an license to use the term from OSI, so the cat is out of the bag (at least
Re:OSI (Score:4, Informative)
I've looked this up and here is the OSI post [opensource.org] you're probably thinking of, by their president, Michael Tiemann.
The OSI (who I should make clear I definitely don't support) were not, as you say, complaining because SugarCRM hadn't payed them money but because the old license clearly didn't follow the OSI open source definition, the FSF free software definition, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (due to various issues including an advertising clause that was worse than the old BSD one).
OSI were also not claiming a legal right to stop this, but, I think, more that the industry and customers should deem it unacceptable (and maybe even, although he doesn't say it, pursuing a case for false advertising).
We do NOT get paid to approve!! (Score:4, Insightful)
But yes, their abuse of our Open Source trademark was the issue. Yes, 'open source' was used before we estableshed a secondary meaning as a trademark; so what?
Re: (Score:2)
The whole trademark thing is still ridiculously absurd though. Seriously; in what way does the supposed secondary meaning differ from the common one? Did they publish the OSI logo or any direct references to OSI, or di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, what about all the girls around here?! Oh, wait, never mind...
Re:Why V3? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There, fixed that for ya. The * and * are still open to interpretation. Last I heard, there are a lot of people still deciding about it. So far, something like 235 out of over 3110 known GPLv2 projects have move to
"3110 known GPLv2 projects"? (Score:2)
Freshmeat lists 23243 [freshmeat.net] projects under the GPL category.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So 2884+235=3119 total projects I trailed a few off for new projects and such. But the gist is right.
Maybe freshmeat doesn't list them all
Re:Why V3? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, it is better in terms of the four freedoms, which are from 1989 and thus way predate the GPLv3. I added the "GPLv3ish" as extras in bold:
The first I think most thought was implicit but it was never explicit in GPLv2, and covers both Tivoization and other DRM. Normal patent licenses were covered in GPLv2, but not pseudo-license tricks. So yes, overall better according to the four design goals of the FSF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not directly because of Linus, but because the whole Linux codebase is not owned by a single entity, and you would have to convince everyone who has ever submitted code to the kernel to agree (which would take an act of St. iGNU
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically it is ACT on drugs (Steroids, pot, heroin and Cialis).