SugarCRM 6 Released, But Is It Open Source? 357
darthcamaro writes "SugarCRM markets itself as a professional open source company and this week released version 6 of its Sugar platform. But the main new feature is a new user interface that isn't available to users of the community version — it's only available to paying users. No they don't claim to be open core either, they claim it's all open source, even if you have to pay for it. '"Open source doesn't mean free and was never really meant to mean free," Martin Schneider, senior director of communications at SugarCRM, said. "Open source runs through everything we do, it enables us to be transparent and gives customers more power. We are an open source company and it's why we're better than proprietary companies."'"
Re:Open source (Score:3, Interesting)
This has bothered me for a while... (Score:3, Interesting)
Strong advocates of "open source" always talk about how having access to the source is a kind of freedom, and that's true. Personally, I would prefer if all software that I purchased came with the source code (and the means to rebuild it) - because this gives me the freedom to fix bugs or make enhancements myself (and also to pay someone else to do it, i.e. to avoid vendor lock-in). It's an important freedom to have, **but** it's a big jump to then say that not only should I have the freedom to see and modify the source, but I should be able to share the whole source - even the parts I didn't write myself - with anyone I want to, without permission from or kickbacks to the original author(s). That is certainly nice, but it's not a "freedom" so much as it is a privilege.
Is the source "open" just because I have access to it along with the software...? I say it is. If I can also give it away to others then it's also "free", but that would be in the as-in-beer sense, not the as-in-speech sense.
The main reason I often prefer "open source" software is because I, personally, get access to the source code - not because it's free in cost, but not either because everyone else "in the wild" can get it too.
Re:Open source (Score:4, Interesting)
A bit of poking around indicates that the community edition is released under GPL v3 and the paid edition is released under this [sugarcrm.com] variation of the Mozilla PL. Someone want to dig through it and work it out?
*reads reads reads*
Section 2.1, and Section 2.2 pretty much say you can distribute the original code with or without modification indiscriminately. ... So... yeah, one should be able to simply buy it once and then "fork" it from the original and provide it free.
Re:He's right (Score:3, Interesting)
No, Snowgirl is right. Though I see you got your +1 Sounds Confident mods. What you are describing is Free (capital 'F') software, also known as "libre" software. Open Source does not mean anything other than you have the source available. For example, so you can inspect it for security reasons, so you can make in-house only changes. Free Software however, is what you get under the GPL. Free Software must of course be Open Source, but the inverse is not the case.
Hear that booming tread? That's Richard Stallman walking up your drive with a four hour lecture of the philosophy of information sharing. I'd hide under your desk if I were you.
Re:He's right (Score:3, Interesting)
I imagine this is why people hate lawyers...
everything is couched in such terms that they know are unassailable, and even when a reasonable argument can be mounted against it, there are still the technicalities introduced intentionally at the start to ensure that they can't be wrong.
I cannot claim that the vast majority of people reading what I wrote will not make invalid assumptions about what I meant, and thus make me sound like I was wrong, but seriously...
The OSI requirements for open source license definitions would allow me to make a license that prevents people from distributing unmodified copies of my program in anything but aggregated products.
Essentially, only avoiding the specific case of people pawning off my direct unmodified works individually. Which is the only thing I objected to in the first place.
Re:He's right (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be far more interesting if you could cite even a hypothetical license that meets the commonly accepted criteria of open source but manages to disallow "indiscriminate distribution".
The license does not allow redistribution of the original code in any form except when included in an aggregate work. (Satisfies section 1)
The license requires that distribution of the original source code cannot be done, but that modifications and derivative works may be distributed as patches. (Potentially satisfies section 3)
Alternatively, the license requires that the original code may not be distributed unless modification is made or a derivative work made. (Definitively satisfies section 3)
Thus, this prevents the specific claimed action, of simply buying and then distributing unedited.
Re:He's right (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember those days, believe it or not. :) No, that really was (and still is) open source. What we have going on here, is a group (the OSI) attempting to re-define Open Source to be synonymous with Free Software. Perhaps one day they will succeed and we'll have to start referring to any open source software that isn't also licensed under something like the GPL as "shared source". One day, perhaps, but (best Aragorn voice) it is not this day!.
Seriously, if you want to refer to software that is both open source and includes the right to distribute and modify, call it "Free Software" like the FSF, or "Libre" software. It's nice, unambiguous, is an existing term and doesn't confuse half the software world which is still filled with people like me who recall Open Source meaning only that the source code is available.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, the problem is not with the database but with the client library. That library is dual-licensed GPL and something proprietary. There's no problem if you use that library in a GPL application, but otherwise you have to use the proprietary-licensed version. Which costs money.
If I'm right, you could work around the problem by writing your own client library (I have no idea how difficult that would be) and using that instead of theirs.
License conflict? (Score:2, Interesting)
License This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License (“License”). To view a copy of this license, visit http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ [creativecommons.org] or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
This license forbids both commercial use and creation of derivative works. Now, download a copy of the community edition here [sugarcrm.com]. Unzip it and look at the "license.txt" file.
GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, 19 November 2007
So, which is the mistake?