Under User Pressure, SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3

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."

Comments

Re:Good

[alexgieg]

Which is next to impossible. 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)

Not necessarily, since a lot of the included source files in the kernel tree are already licensed as "GPL v2 or later".

Of course it would be difficult to get the remaining code relicensed, and some of it might have to be rewritten due to some authors not being found and a handful of those found not wanting to relicense, but it's not impossible, only something that would be very time consuming and probably done by some 3rd party organization.

I believe in the near future a non-profit will be established for doing exactly this author research and contacting for files not yet marked as "or later". Afterwards, a kernel fork will be made to rewrite the (few) pieces that the non-profit didn't manage to get relicensed while keeping all the pieces "GPLv3 compatible" synced. And over time, once the rewritten pieces have been properly tested, the fork will become the new official version, now fully GPLv3 licensed.

This time, preferably, with the "or later" kept intact. ;)

Re:Why V3?

[Kjella]

Yes, because we all know that bigger version numbers are better and that license changes are always an improvement.

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 freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs and still run it on the same hardware (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies along with any patent licenses or license-like protection you were granted 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.
  

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:"3110 known GPLv2 projects"?

[sumdumass]

According to this which I saw from this post, there are 2884 GPLv2 projects still and 235 have already moved to GPLv3.

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?

Hey, waitasec...

[toolz]

Aren't SugarCRM partnered with Microsoft?

And hasn't MS said that it will have nothing to do with GPLv3?

Wooooo... INCOMING!

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[Curien]

Would you say the 13th amendment made us more or less free? The GPL is exactly analogous.

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 (that even if you take away some aspect of freedom, the net effect can be an overall increase of freedom), I disagree that the method that the 13th Amendment took to deal with the issue of slavery is "exactly analogous" to the copyleft approach to the issue of copyright because the issues themselves are not analogous.

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[sepluv]

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 seriously.

Just to knock down a few of the less abrasive strawmen/ad hominems: yes I do know how difficult it is to run your own business as I've considered it (and realised how difficult it would be); and FTR I'm merely a computer user not a programmer (at all), but have studied my jurisdiction's copyright law quite a bit (not using /. but textbooks, legislation and case law).

Too bad that that's not all it takes to succeed Clearly that is why Linux hasn't succeeded then, as success can only be defined as a corporation making lots of money for its shareholders in your world view.

I do understand the very important role that CEOs have in a corporate system, but I would dispute why generating wealth is so much more useful than any other job like programming (if by wealth, you mean the net worth of a company). In particular, assuming you are using the economic meaning, they aren't generating it as such, but taking it from somewhere else (e.g.: private individuals or other companies), in general.

* Although I think it does help if they have a very basic level of understanding of the essentials of their business so the wool can't be pulled over their eyes--not saying this CEO has or hasn't BTW based on a few short quotes).