Under User Pressure, SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3 162
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."
one word... (Score:5, Funny)
SWEET!
Re:one word... High-5'er (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
I am so glad I can copy your post for use in this quote without fear of being sued. I'm glad some people take the time and screen real-estate to explicitly place their post in the public domain.
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 they can run companies -- 99% of them bite the dust, even with millions of dollars in first phase investment. Why, some of their ideas were even good. Too bad that that's not all it takes to succeed.)
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 explaining why they've decided to use it (which you thought was "disparaging" and my saying he was a "moron" which I didn't). So, really, we aren't in disagreement. Actually the real main point of my post was H-U-M-O-U-R; it wasn't supposed to be taken ser
Re: (Score:2)
You need to study some economics. Economic activity is not a zero-sum game. Wealth can be created, and it happens every day. You do not have to "take from others" to ge
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 with the interaction between *people*. The GPL deals with the interaction between a person and *software*. Contrary to the neoligsm, a piece of software (AIs notwithstanding) cannot have freedom; only people can.
So while I mostly agree with your sentiment (t
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you want to pick nits yes. The GPL does not repeal copyright in exactly the same way the 13th amendment repeals slavery. So what? The point stands that a restrictive clause can have the net effect of increasing liberty.
A truly free license would say simply "you may redistribute this information". That's called putting
Permission, or obligation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if you want to pick nits yes. The GPL does not repeal copyright in exactly the same way the 13th amendment repeals slavery.
Really, the analogy you'd want to go for here is that GPLing a project is like freeing a slave. The GPL has no effect on what laws are in effect one way or another. Even then though, GPLing a project is *not* like freeing a slave, for exactly the reasons I listed before. It's not just a little bit different, it's entirely different. GPL is a license to use a copyrighted work the way that one might license other to use ones slaves (or, I suppose, license one's slaves to do certain things). It might be a les
Re: (Score:2)
The only restriction is on the restrictions. Would you say the 13th amendment made us more or less free? The GPL is exactly analogous.
The GPL is more analogous to something like affirmative action laws. They don't prevent you from preventing others from doing things; they require you to enable others in specific ways. The GPL says you may not distribute the covered information without also distributing certain other information: affirmative action laws say you may not hire certain people (i.e. too many white people) unless you also hire certain other people (enough black people). Both are *restrictive* in the same of ostensibly more egal
Reads like an infomercial... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 CRM software'
No doubt they DO like it as a license, because all the 'user pressure' in the world isn't enough to make someone give up their rights, if they've have a mind. They -chose- to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the Open source edition is quite limited compared t
Re: (Score:2)
and their licencing is:
vtiger's modifications to the SugarCRM code are under vtiger Public License 1.1 based on Mozilla Public License (MPL). Additional components written by vtiger, not coming under the purview of the SPL, are provided under MPL
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 come across one of the threads [sugarcrm.com] with "user pressure" on this issue, which I found interesting.
Also, there is an official press release [sugarcrm.com] and an FAQ list [sugarforge.org] on the license change.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Vtiger *IS* SugarCRM, freed from the bullshit of Sugar. Virtually all of the open source contributers to SugarCRM have already jumped ship to vtiger. It's so bad that Sugar won't even allow vtiger to be mentioned in their forums for fear it will draw away more users.
Also, contrary to this announcement, THEY ARE NOT SWITCHING TO GPLv3!!!!! They plan to release the "Open Source Community Edition" as GPLv3. The "Community Edition" is not a COMPLETE version of SugarCRM, it doesn't inclu
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, waitasec... (Score:3, Interesting)
And hasn't MS said that it will have nothing to do with GPLv3?
Wooooo... INCOMING!
Re: (Score:2)
Incoming what? Snide FSF fanboy jeers? Because there's nothing else that'll be incoming just because Sugar have agreements with Microsoft.
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 version soon"
"5 Reasons why I hate Shiny"
"Is Shiny dying?"
"Look at Shimmering, will anyone use it?"
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 devices which are essentially black boxes as far as the end user is concerned - Google's own search device proves that. Whether or not a CRM product could sell that way - I really don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only business the GPL is trying to close is Microsoft - and Stallman and Moglen have pretty much admitted that.
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: (Score:2)
That is false. "Tivoization" (what a horrible word) still allows you to run your (modified) software for any purpose you wish. It just prevents you from using the original hardware to do so. Call a spade
Re: (Score:2)
In a certain way, yes, but only if the hardware vendor wants to use GPLv3 software, what he isn't obliged to do. I myself don't know whether I'm really opposed to tivoization, but anyone who knows the case of the Xerox 9700 printer [wikipedia.org] that trigge
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> for any purpose you wish. It just prevents you from using the original hardware to do
> so.
Which means that if no hardware replacement exists which could run the software, you in practice would not be able to run the software "for any purpose".
You forget how RMS began the concept of Free Software: He had a printer not doing what he wanted it to do, and wanted to change that, but was refused the source code of th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, that's a free systems issue, not a free software issue. The two could be conflated to some degree back then, but that doesn't work so well now that we have DRM and signed code.
Which is why DRM AKA copy protection and "signed code" are antithetical to the idea of Free Software. It's specifically designed to make your hardware more difficult and expensive to use. All such systems will eventually lead to massive data loss (if not swiftly broken) for consumers, and this is BY DESIGN. Copy protection is viciously anti-consumer and if you don't understand this you aren't very familiar with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You built the software. Why isn't it then your responsibility to build the hardware on which you wish to run it? Why is it someone else's responsibility to provide you with hardware on which to run your MODIFIED software?
Freedom zero is a myth, and I'm sick of hearing about it. It doesn't exist, and it never has! Any piece of hardware has limitations which
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)
Well, I think that's why those who didn't want what RMS meant (and never hid, writing and speaking about it whenever he managed to, to anyone who would listen), only what a specific license explicitly said, kept removing the "or later" clause.
Now, if someone wrote a softwar
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In effect, proprietary licenses fall victim to the delusion that what is good for oneself is the best possible action, while BSD etc fall victim to the delusion that what is good for the other is the best possible action. Neither one realizes t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What FUD? This is simply reality. Anyone can lock down BSD software, the license was designed to allow this. Being so is neither "good" nor "evil", it's simply the way it is, and lots of people, in the open sou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. If you go back to the 2nd half of my original post, you'll notice I say that proprietary, BSD and GPL can only maximize the rights ("freedoms") granted to a party by minimizing the rights granted to the other two parties. A license (or, rather, licensing style) is freer than the other two only from the point of view of a specific group: that
Re: (Score:2)
They moved from their own personal license and from what I can tell, it is a lateral move. So it is likely to be advertising on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing stopping me from taking one project, re-branding it, and selling it as my own program as long as I follow the guidelines of the GPL. I could even create non GPLed program just like sugarCRM or whatever the name is that add functionality that doesn't exist in the program and sell that too. Nothing in the GPLv2 or GPLv3 stops that from happe
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 because people just happenned to use that word in the meaning I defined.
It also means that if sufficient people use a non-OSI-conforming definition of the term, the trademark could never be established. Since many people believe the original BSD license to be op
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, until people stop using the term "open source" for a while). One could also argue that it is a generic term for a class of products which would mean it could never be trademarked even if it stops being used in a descriptive or generic way (hence Microso
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 did they just claim to be "Open source"? Is this a capitalization thing, where OSI claims the trademark on a specific typographical format of the words?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Russ, you don't get paid to approve licenses. Actually, I'm not sure anyone outside the OSI board knows what happens to get a license approved.
According to the guidelines, a license had to be submitted to the mailing list for public scrutiny and discussion. Well, I was subscribed to the list for 2 years or so, and I only recall a single case that a license submitted to the list was approved. At the same time, the nu
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 the GPLv3. Most of them I think are the ones the FSF control.
It was the users clamoring for it. Which makes me wonder why the users weren't clamoring for the GPLv2? OR if those clamoring for it were actually users and not plants to drive support for the G
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see that I didn't notice the value of the number was that large. So Yea, I guess it is a lot more.
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)
And lets be clear, they weren't encrypting the binaries and not giving the source code, they were making it so their hardware would only run their binaries which is still in the spirit of the GPLv2. It even says that the act of running the program is outside the scope of the license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is the case at all. It is running the program on specific hardware that is being denied. However, I don't agree that running the program is the right of all users of free software in the sense that it entitles people to run everything anywhere they choose. The GPL has been very specific that running or executing the program is outside the scope of the GPL license.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that restriction only applies if "the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred". Which is interesting, b
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are big deals today. Well, wehn mixing them with GPLe software, maybe. The later more then the first but I think the GPLv2 deals with that too. It would appear that the same patent problems that could be seen in the GPLv2 can happen with the GPLv3. And we are going to find a lot of this out when people start pulling projects into GPLv3 land without the abil
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you on this. But I'm not sure how one could go about working around it.
On the one hand, as soon as the language in a document like the GPL gets too specific, it's likely to become obsolete much more quickly.
On the other hand, the rather broader terms used in GPLv2 (which, lest we forget, is something like 16 years old) have resulted in a number of companies following the letter but by no means the spirit of the license, by inventing all sorts
Re: (Score:2)
But the Microsoft Novell issue was a non issue from the start. Novell made a deal with Microsoft with the intent of developing new products for their users. There is no indecat
Re: (Score:2)
'll simply say I agree with the position Linus takes. You get the code, you get to modify it, you get to run it. You get all the freedoms the FSF and the GPL was talking about before the GPLv3 came around. What you don't get is a glorified VCR that you can use as a general purpose computer.
Since you probably don't know your history, the FSF was founded because Stallman was unable to modify the firmware of a Xerox laser printer to add functionality. The FSF for founded to give you the freedom to hack your Tivo's software to add functionality. And that's exactly what the "black box" loophole of GPLv2 allows.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice troll but not quite good enough. He started it because he needed to fix a bug in the printer driver. BUG !
Re: (Score:2)
In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were not given the software's source code for the Xerox 9700 laser printer (code-named Dover), the industry's first. Stallman had modified the software on an older printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users when a printer was jammed. Not being able to add this feature to the Dover printer was a major inco
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. He modified the driver by using another driver and the changes were on the computer not the printe
Re: (Score:2)
Sam William's book is hardly the "original recount". I'm telling you the story as Stallman told me back when I met him in 1990. He was talking to a group of us at a computer club and he related the story. And as HE related the story, he was talking about the firmware (essentially) on the Xerox laser printer. He talked about other features he wanted to add too, like timestamping (or something like that). Most of the talk at the meeting was about Bill's 386BSD which was eagerly anticip
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. iGNUcious)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily, since a lot of the included source files in the kernel tree are already licensed as "GPL v2 or later" [blogspot.com].
Of course it would be difficult to get the remaining code relicensed, and some of it might have to be rewritten due to some author
Re: (Score:2)
Basically it is ACT on drugs (Steroids, pot, heroin and Cialis).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Accounts, Contacts, Calendar, Activities, Products, Pricing, Leads, Opportunities, Quotes, Orders, Incidents, Service Requests, etc. are some of the features available in most CRM applicat
Re: (Score:2)
What do you expect them to say if they are under pressure from users? "We hate the frigging GPLv3 and love our old license, but you stupid nasty users are all whining about it, so we're switching. Fine." You can't say someone didn't make a decision under pressure just because they announce it in terms that looks like they did for their own independent reasons. Would you reject the possibility that an official was forced out of office just because their offi