- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Is SugarCRM open source?
One of the world's premier Commercial Open Source advocates have recently closed down their software, while still preaching the open source gospel. SugarCRM rose to glory during mid-2004, touting "Commercial Open Source". Recently a decision was made to re-license SugarCRM under a modified Mozilla Public License, with the prime modification being a restriction on removing the "Powered by SugarCRM" icon on every page. The Sugar Public License is not OSI approved, and is most likely incompatible with open source philosophy, as you are not granted freedom to tinker with all aspects of the code. However, SugarCRM is still listed on SourceForge.net as an MPL licensed software, which would suggest that the version distributed through SourceForge is licensed under different terms than the code distributed through SugarCRM.org. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/sugarcrm) However, a download of version 4.5 reveals however, that the MPL has been replaced by the SPL. Should SugarCRM be removed from SourceForge? Are they dishonouring the open source philosophy and community? Please comment on SugarCRM still preaching open source freedom, while sharing their code under a non-free license. Here is Sugar's addition to the MPL: SugarCRM Public License 1.1.3 - Exhibit B Additional Terms applicable to the SugarCRM Public License. I. Effect. These additional terms described in this SugarCRM Public License - Additional Terms shall apply to the Covered Code under this License. II. SugarCRM and logo. This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks "SugarCRM" and the "SugarCRM" logos even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications. However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM" logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org. In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org The full SugarCRM Public License can be read here: http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/SPL |
|
|
Comments (8)
Not OSI-approved
And if you look at the OSI pages, you'll see that only new-BSD is OSI approved, not old-BSD.
With regards to trade marks - both RedHat and Mozilla are protecting their trademarks by forcing copiers to *remove* their logos, graphics, etc. from the product - not forcing them to include it. Forcing you to remove a trade mark would mean protecting it - forcing the developer to include it would mean a restriction. AFAIK, Open Source is about granting rights, not impose restrictions.
They failed to change the license reference
What is SugarCRM's comment and plans regarding this issue?
"Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by OSTG as applicable to such Source Code.
(...)
Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by OSTG as applicable to such Content."
from https://sourceforge.net/tos/tos.php
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Anyway, this looks like trademarks again. I think it's time for some discussion about that in the community. Is protection of trademark really against freedom?