Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: sugarforge.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to sugarforge.org.

Comments · 9

  1. sharepoint is another failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative · on Cracking Open the SharePoint Fortress
    Slashdot is just doing its part to publish astroturfing. MS Sharepoint is a failure wherever it is deployed. Here are the CRM packages MS is trying out shout:

    O3Spaces

    Lenya

    SugardCRM

    Alfresco

    Main pyrus

    Nuxeo

  2. Why Sugar? by Toe,+The · · Score: 1 · on $100 Laptop Platform Moves On

    Anyone know why they chose the name of an existing OSS project?

  3. Re:Finally they've chosen... by sepluv · · Score: 1 · on Under User Pressure, SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3

    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 with "user pressure" on this issue, which I found interesting.

    Also, there is an official press release and an FAQ list on the license change.

  4. Re:Thanks but No thanks. by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1 · on Under User Pressure, SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3

    How's that integration compare to Funambol with SugarCRM connector and Outlook plugin?

    I've been using it as an intermediary to keep my caldendar/contact data sync'd between my PocketPC and Mozilla Thunderbird. Then again, I've not used SugarCRM at all, so I'm a bit out of my field.
  5. Re:Badgeware is the problem by TheNicestGuy · · Score: 2, Informative · on OSI To Crack Down On "Open Source" Abusers

    Thank you, Bruce. Like many here, I was trying to figure out what Tiemann found so objectionable about SugarCRM's license. Being based on the Mozilla Public License, it looks very much like a lot of open-source licenses out there. It took a while to spot the "badgeware" clause hiding down at the very bottom:

    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.sugarcrm.com/

    And suddenly that's no longer open source, because "open" doesn't just mean you can see it. It means you can use it and modify it for any purpose you want, including making new software for distribution, without jumping through hoops. As a developer, that's always been my understanding. This is "available, but branding-encumbered" source.

  6. Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on Top Ten Open Source Innovators
    No he cannot, this is a case of poor reading comprehension.

    In particular the poster above is misinterpreting these sections of the SPL:

    6.3. Derivative Works.
    If You create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do
    in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this
    License), You must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases "SugarCRM",
    "SPL" or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear in your license (except
    to note that your license differs from this License) and (b) otherwise make it
    clear that Your version of the license contains terms which differ from the
    SugarCRM Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original
    Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of 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/
  7. Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative · on Top Ten Open Source Innovators
    No he cannot, this is a case of poor reading comprehension.

    In particular the poster above is misinterpreting these sections of the SPL:

    6.3. Derivative Works.
    If You create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do
    in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this
    License), You must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases "SugarCRM",
    "SPL" or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear in your license (except
    to note that your license differs from this License) and (b) otherwise make it
    clear that Your version of the license contains terms which differ from the
    SugarCRM Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original
    Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of 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/
  8. Re:Calling SugarCRM "open source" is generous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Top Ten Open Source Innovators

    You cannot derive a new product from SugarCRM; for all practical purposes, the "license" forbids it.


    What's this then?

    http://www.infoathand.com/

    or this?

    http://www.c3crm.com/

    They seem to be doing just fine without any objections from the Sugar team. (and without stripping the "Powered by SugarCRM" logos)

    The Sugar team has been quite supportive of my modification of their product:
    http://www.sugarforge.org/projects/table-sugar/

    vTiger, however does not openly acknowledge that they have based their product on Sugar, thus the problem.

    I have thoroughly evaluated all of these products, and Sugar is far superior to vTiger. The code in vTiger is a mess, Sugar was bad enough, but vTiger is awful, it will only run on php5, severely limiting its usefulness. It has a number of other deal breaking issues as well. They also make a habit of taking code from new versions of the pro version of Sugar and incorporate it into vTiger, calling it their own.

    Granted, the "semi-open source" nature of Sugar is frustrating, but the missing modules will eventually be replaced with community versions, and the division of their product into OS, Pro and enterprise version will be moot. The license is not a problem, the missimg modules in the OS version are.

    If you need a CRM, I highly recommend SugarCRM over vTiger.
  9. Re:Requires it's own server for everything by Linker3000 · · Score: 1 · on Zimbra Collaboration Suite Launched

    SugarCRM is worth a look - we've just moved over to it from Maximizer.