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

one word...

[Anonymous Coward]

...SugarCRM Adopts GPLv3...

SWEET!

Re:one word...

[everphilski]

DUDE!!!

Re:one word...

[Anonymous Coward]

SWEET!

Cognitive dissonance?

[Lockejaw]

More copyleft and less restrictive... uh... ok...

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[sepluv]

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:Cognitive dissonance?

[m50d]

Entirely possible, e.g. the previous one could have not allowed redistribution at all.

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[Hatta]

Not at all. Copyleft prevents you from taking away the rights of others, it also prevents others from taking away your rights. In this way it is less restrictive. The only restriction is on the restrictions. Would you say the 13th amendment made us more or less free? The GPL is exactly analogous.

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?

[Hatta]

Software itself cannot have freedom, but people can have rights with respect to software. Whether you're holding slaves, or holding copyright, you are taking away the rights of people.

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[kestasjk]

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?

[Pfhorrest]

Whether you're holding slaves, or holding copyright, you are taking away the rights of people. The GPL does not counteract copyright law. Releasing something into the public domain counteracts copyright law. The GPL relies on copyright law, albiet to different ends than usual.

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:Cognitive dissonance?

[Pfhorrest]

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 egalitarian outcomes. You may want to say that gains in "equality" are worth a sacrifice in liberty, but don't go around saying your "equality" is actually liberty itself.

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[Hatta]

The GPL does not counteract copyright law. Releasing something into the public domain counteracts copyright law. The GPL relies on copyright law, albiet to different ends than usual.

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 a work in the public domain: you release any claims on it.

I would argue that that's not truly free at all. There's no guarantee that I will be free to modify the code of such a licensed work.

Of course this whole analogy is busted from the start because a freed slave has rights that freed information does not.

A freed slave has rights in the same way that the user of a free work has rights. Copyright does not restrict works. It restricts actions of people who use works. Similarly slavery restricts the actions of people.

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[808140]

I love this petty CEO-bashing that we have here on Slashdot. I don't know much about SugarCRM, and I'll admit that there are idiots who run companies (as there are idiots in any profession) but this elitist attitude is one of the things that annoys me most about nerds. Have you ever run your own company? Made it profitable? Done the accounting? Managed a bunch of people with skills that don't overlap much with your own?

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: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).

Re:Cognitive dissonance?

[Thundersnatch]

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.

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 generate wealth.

A small example: You have a stack of wood. I have a hammer and a box of nails. Together, we build a barn. By investing our time, we have created something of value that is worth more than a pile of wood and box of nails. Worth many times more, in fact. This is the essence of how wealth is created. In reality, you don't even need the wood and nails... there are plenty of things that have value without being a physical commodity.

GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only is it change for the sake of change (asinine), but it is another step toward our authoritarian future.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a fucking idiot? How can an optional license that guarantees user freedom be authoritarian, fuckwit? Useless troll, go munch on some fungus.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

It guarantees restrictions, not freedom.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you even READ the GPLv3? Only a Microshaft shill would say it "guarantees restrictions". How transparent.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey dimwit, die in a fire. GP is *CORRECT*

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a fucking shill. Wank off.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

ITT one man argues with himself over the Internet.

Re:GPL 3 is a SHAM

[Anonymous Coward]

As I said, die in a fire.

GPL Converts.

[Aladrin]

Oh lord. Are we going to get a frontpage news report for every single project that converts to GPL v3? Maybe we could report on every single license change for every single open source project and really flood the front page.

As for SugarCRM... Was it really likely that someone was going to make a tivo-like device and lock it down, requiring the user to only use the SugarCRM that was provided? I can't even imagine what the appliance would be for. The stated reason is that it's 'more liberal'... First I've heard of this.

Can anyone explain why the V3, which appears to impose more restrictions, actually imposes fewer?

Re:GPL Converts.

[mwvdlee]

It imposes fewer restriction on people who make no use of the rights provided by the license.

Re:GPL Converts.

[sepluv]

Was it really likely that someone was going to make a tivo-like device and lock it down, requiring the user to only use the SugarCRM that was provided? Even if you can't be bothered reading TFA you could at least read the first sentence of the story which makes it clear that they weren't moving from GPLv2 but their own custom license.

Re:GPL Converts.

[howlingmadhowie]

it ensures less restrictions on the user by imposing more restrictions on the person who's packaging and distributing the software. that's what the GPL is about: the user.

Re:GPL Converts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did GP mention that they were moving from GPLv2?

Re:GPL Converts.

[Anonymous Coward]

It didn't. but it was fairly obvious the that the poster was under some kind of misapprehension - unless they believed the Sugar license to be "more liberal" than the GPL. Unfuckinglikely.

Re:GPL Converts.

[DrSkwid]

Until GPL3 adoption is common we will get GPL3 stories, and probably for a while thereafter.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not specifically about GPLv3. They were on GPL 2, then moved to their own license, and now are moving back to the GPL because their community dissipated.

Re:GPL Converts.

[just_another_sean]

Considering that about 235 projects have moved to GPLv3 and we haven't seen that many articles I'd say no, there won't be a story for every switch.

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:GPL Converts.

[Aladrin]

Oh right, yeah. That makes sense.

Well good for them, then... This still isn't frontpage news.

Re:GPL Converts.

[jimicus]

Was it really likely that someone was going to make a tivo-like device and lock it down, requiring the user to only use the SugarCRM that was provided? I can't even imagine what the appliance would be for.

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:GPL Converts.

[sepluv]

I agree about minor license moves and updates not being newsworthy. But I think software which is quite popular (which I think this is) moving from a non-free to a free/open-source license is definitely deserving of a story here.

Re:GPL Converts.

[SolitaryMan]

Oh lord. Are we going to get a frontpage news report for every single project that converts to GPL v3?

Well, we did for every user that bought an iPhone...

Re:GPL Converts.

[alexgieg]

Can anyone explain why the V3, which appears to impose more restrictions, actually imposes fewer?

Because it restricts software distributors efforts to restrict their users.

The GPL license is always a legalese means to a concrete end, as explained in FSF's definition of free software. 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:GPL Converts.

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter if someone makes a TIVO like device with it. The GPLv3 allows for this to happen for commercial use. A CRM (customer relations manager) is by default a commercial product.

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 /. Although the GPLv3 does need some hyping. So i guess it could be a number of reasons for the front page announcement.

Re:GPL Converts.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 11 types of people in the world, those who know binaries and those who don't.

The joke is "binary math", not "binaries".

Re:GPL Converts.

[Curien]

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.

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 "a spade": The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.

Re:GPL Converts.

[mabhatter654]

probably because the GPL3 adds a clause for web services that are GPLd to have a link back to source. If the author includes that, it's not supposed to be removed, so things like CRM are more in line with what the private licenses were trying to do.. keep people from rebranding their source code services and taking all the credit. Now that they can require re-users to link to the source for web apps, they can use a less restrictive license. Like every body else, they want CREDIT for their free product and that it can't be used against them without telling the customers.. GPL3 does that.

Re:GPL Converts.

[gigne]

Also it should be 10 types, which is binary for 2, not 11 which is binary for 3.

Re:GPL Converts.

[alexgieg]

hat 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 "a spade": The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.

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 that triggered Stallman's creation of the free software movement would be very naive in thinking that he would just sit idly while the software he created as a means against this very thing was being subverted instead into a means of supporting hardware lock down. In their core the GPL, the FSF and the free software movement are all about freeing the user from undue 3rd party controls.

Thus, I really understand why he is doing this. It isn't really about controlling the distribution of hardware, but quite the opposite, to avoid the hardware control of his software. More specifically, he probably doesn't want any GPL covered software to ever help in anything described in his (poorly written, but interesting nevertheless) 1997 short story The Right to Read, something that GPLv2 allows, and GPLv3 definitely doesn't.

Re:GPL Converts.

[DrSkwid]

No it shouldn't. It is perfectly accurate as it is. Plese check your assumptions.
Though, to be fair, changing it to binary from binaries would make it different.
Perhaps that's why it says binaries.

Re:GPL Converts.

[muuh-gnu]

> "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.

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 the drivers upon request. Then he came up with the "four freedoms". If he got the source code, but the printer refused to run it when modified, it would be _efectively_ useless (or do you really think Stallman would considered it free, because when not on his printer, he could at least run it on his toaster?), as it is the case with TiVo. The only ones who can make use of it as of yet are developers able to port it to another architecture, or competing hardware manufactuers adapting it to their own hardware.

The simple user, which is the one the GPL is focused on, has no chance of actually using this so called "free code".

So yes, the GPL already always _meant_ that you should have the rights to run software on the same device the manufacturer runs it on if he uses GPL-Code for it, it is only that it took time until the GPLv3 that this idea got worded properly because it appeared only recently for the first time.

> The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.

No it doesnt, so stop lying.

It stops greedy fucks from using all their imagination to indirectly deny people rights they got from the GPL explicitely, either through patents (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _allowed_ to run it) or technical DRM measures (You get code with all the GPL freedoms - but arent _able_ to run it.)

Re:GPL Converts.

[Timothy Brownawell]

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 the drivers upon request. Then he came up with the "four freedoms". If he got the source code, but the printer refused to run it when modified, it would be _efectively_ useless (or do you really think Stallman would considered it free, because when not on his printer, he could at least run it on his toaster?), as it is the case with TiVo. The only ones who can make use of it as of yet are developers able to port it to another architecture, or competing hardware manufactuers adapting it to their own hardware.

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. What RMS wanted was a free system, that would let him fix the broken parts. What is asked for was free software, because at the time there wasn't much difference.

The GPL is a software license, but the latest version tries to apply itself to systems. This is an error, because in order for a component to dictate features of the rest of the system that component must necessarily not be free.

Re:GPL Converts.

[the not-troll]

I'd put that differently: The GPL attempts to get the maximum freedom possible for everyone instead of just for one party. Other licenses (BSD or proprietary, for example) maximize freedom for some parties to the very end of the scale at the cost of freedom of others.

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 that the other party is going to lose freedom - and they don't even start thinking of end users.

Re:GPL Converts.

[rtechie]

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. In fact Google's search appliance, and Google's business strategy in general, is specifically the exploitation loophole in the GPL that v3 is trying to close.

Re:GPL Converts.

[Curien]

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 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 make it impossible to achieve in practice. Ever.

The simple user, which is the one the GPL is focused on

GPL has never been focused on the simple user. The simple user does not modify programs and thus has no use for source code.

So yes, the GPL already always _meant_ that you should have the rights to run software on the same device the manufacturer runs it on if he uses GPL

No, it didn't. If it had, Stallman wouldn't have needed to change the license to accomplish that. QED.

>> The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware.
>No it doesnt, so stop lying. ... It stops greedy fucks from using ... DRM measures [to keep you from running it].

You call me a liar and then repeat what I said in the same breath.

The fact is that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are fundamentally different licenses with different repurcussions. RMS may have *meant* some of the things in GPLv3 when he wrote v2, but they aren't there, and a hell of a lot of people never wanted them.

Re:GPL Converts.

[sumdumass]

The GPLv3 also allows you to create a TIVO style lockout on a device and combine it with the GPLv3 covered work that stops you from running your own code.

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 happening. What do you think a fork is?

Re:GPL Converts.

[MooUK]

Why should I not want to run modified software on the hardware I've bought?
Why should someone be able to stop me from doing so?

To date I've not seen any good answer to these questions.

Re:GPL Converts.

[Anonymous Coward]

TL;DR

But in any "lock-in" scenario (eg caused by bundling, embrace and extend etc) a business has more freedom when that software is under a commercial license than when it is under the GPL (because the former is about negotiation for profit wheras the latter is about ideological fundamentalism).

Consequently, however bad it has been when M$ got people "hooked" on their proprietary stuff, it will be 100 times worse if/when GPL reaches critical mass and can do the same thing.

That the word "freedom" is used to con people into thinking the software they're slowly becoming reliant upon is serving their interests is simply a sick joke.

Re:GPL Converts.

[rtechie]

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:GPL Converts.

[alexgieg]

The fact is that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are fundamentally different licenses with different repurcussions. RMS may have *meant* some of the things in GPLv3 when he wrote v2, but they aren't there, and a hell of a lot of people never wanted them.

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 software, licensed it under GPLv1 or GPLv2 maintaining the "or later" clause, all the while not even trying to know RMS' texts and speeches to know what he meant with the licenses, and thus what the future of the license held, that person was, well, lazy. Nothing in this was a secret.

By the way: all of this might be said about the transition from GPLv1 to GPLv2. Who had had the trouble of reading/listening RMS wasn't caught by surprise then. At any time you either support the spirit and vision in the non-legalese "philosophy" behind the GPL by allowing the "or later" to remain, or the letter of a specific GPL version by removing the "or later" clause. Both options are clearly explained all over the Internet, and opting for one or the other doesn't carry any kind of ambiguity.

Re:GPL Converts.

[jimicus]

Not sure about that. The Google appliance is nothing more than a Dell 2950 painted yellow and branded with Google's branding. I have no idea if they go to any effort to stop you from reloading the OS on it, but even if they do, what good would it do you? You'd be changing a functional, useful box which is designed to be an efficient plug-in-and-forget-about-it device into a system which sort of works, doesn't quite do what it did when you bought it and cost you more to buy than the server hardware it's based on is worth in the first place.

I'm pretty sure most, if not all of the software that isn't GPL'd on there will be userland stuff, so there's no significant GPL issues.

Re:GPL Converts.

[rtechie]

The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware. Nonsense. The GPLv3 aims to control the sale of "black boxes" containing open source software. If you release ALL of the source code for the software in a given hardware appliance, you're good under the GPLv3. What is to stop someone (including business competitors) from taking your software, building their own hardware, and then selling it as their own? Absolutely nothing. That's the whole point.

Re:GPL Converts.

[PietjeJantje]

GPL is a license for people who can't talk about it without FUDding some other respected open source license, where they don't do that kind of thing. Whenever you see FUD about other open source licenses when someone is talking about the GPL, be aware, be very aware... and tell them reality is Webkit.

Re:GPL Converts.

[alexgieg]

GPL is a license for people who can't talk about it without FUDding some other respected open source license, where they don't do that kind of thing. Whenever you see FUD about other open source licenses when someone is talking about the GPL, be aware, be very aware... and tell them reality is Webkit.

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 source as well as in the proprietary software world, love it for this. Stating a broadly known, acknowledged and praised fact is in no way, shape or form FUD.

Re:GPL Converts.

[Kalriath]

No, they actually altered the GPLv3 so as not to piss Google off (Affero GPL compatibility)

The only business the GPL is trying to close is Microsoft - and Stallman and Moglen have pretty much admitted that.

Re:GPL Converts.

[trytoguess]

In short people don't care. Companies take the right away w/o a fight since they gain something, and most users don't since they don't like modifying tech. Your questions is like asking is it moral to kill bugs. In the end it's convience not morals that win something like this. It just aint convient to fight corporations, or learn to live with bugs.

Re:GPL Converts.

[PietjeJantje]

That's not what you said, thank you for your new statement. What you said was a copy of RMS, about his redefinition of "freedom" for his personal world view. It's funny all his friends from yesteryear praise him for what he has achieved, but make fun of the ideology part. If only it could have been a simple "I want code back" license, an agreement, like it really is, without the crap stuffed into it that polarized the hacker scene and for many is just a way to sell, well that you want stuff back, it would have been fine.

Re:GPL Converts.

[alexgieg]

That's not what you said, thank you for your new statement. What you said was a copy of RMS, about his redefinition of "freedom" for his personal world view.

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 favored by it. The other two groups, evidently, see that same license as being clearly less free for them. So, although I myself prefer GPL, I'm not naive enough to think it's better for all. It's only better for me. :-)

last ditch effort

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're obviously going out of business and need free advertising from thousands of salivating software socialists getting wood over another GPLv3 adoption. This is how freedom dies.

OSI

[mwvdlee]

Wasn't the whole deal that OSI, the self-proclaimed guardians of Open Source, complained because SugarCRM didn't pay OSI to verify their license and as such SugarCRM shouldn't be allowed to use the term "Open Source" claimed by OSI as their trademark even though it was already in popular use with the same meaning far before OSI was founded?

Re:OSI

[sepluv]

No, because the trademark office wouldn't let OSI trademark "open source" as it is descriptive. Now, if SugarCRM was claiming to be "OSI certified", OSI might have complained.

Re:OSI

[sepluv]

I've looked this up and here is the OSI post 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).

Re:OSI

[Russ Nelson]

But it's possible that, 8 years later, we might be able to change their minds. In the US, trademarks are established by use, not registration. Most people use Open Source in a compliant manner, so there's hope of having legal means of going after recalcitrant misusers.

Re:OSI

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of "newspeak"?

Re:OSI

[mwvdlee]

Just because most people happen to use "open source" in a compliant manner, doesn't mean they are doing it intentionally.

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 open source and OSI doesn't, that might become a problem for OSI.

Re:OSI

[sepluv]

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 Microsoft paying off Lindows when the judge made it clear that the likely outcome of the case was for MS's trademark on Windows to be declare invalid for this reason).

The whole problem with this is that OSI want(ed) to use trademark law to designate a class of products or describe products, when it is meant to be used to protect a particular company's brand (so other products of that class don't pas themselves off as that company's). If people are claiming their products are open source when they aren't the correct way to deal with that is to use the criminal laws on fraud, misleading advertising and trade descriptions. If OSI are indeed still insisting they should have a trademark on it (which I didn't think they were), that suggests to me that they may have an ulterior motive like wanting to fill their coffers with license fees or control the distribution of open source software.

(Also see my great aunt post.)

HOT MILFY BEWBS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get her to add you as a friend.....you get to see milfy bewbs!!!!

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=us er.viewprofile&friendID=108370887

It worked for me!@!!!

Reads like an infomercial...

[lilomar]

'It's more copyleft, more liberal and less restrictive than our current license.' But, call within the next ten minutes, and you can get two, that's right, TWO, GPLv3 licenses for the same low-low price! Don't miss out on this special TV offer!

Re:Reads like an infomercial...

[mabhatter654]

it's the web apps clause that allows required links to "credits" pages including source code if the author chooses. That feature is MORE copyleft, but removes their need to create a custom license simply to get proper credit and ensure other companies are using their code correctly (as they provide non-free versions also)

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, wake me up when the Linux kernel is GPLv3. That'll be the real test of its mettle!

(capatcha: hamlet - how appropriate!)

Re:Good

[Constantine XVI]

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)

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. ;)

Why the FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under user pressure" strongly implies that the people in charge didn't want to do it. But from the quotes, it's clear that they've been planning this for a while. While I undeerstand that there are some legitimate criticisms of the GPLv3, it just seems to me that it's the new trendy thing to hate. Grow up, guys.

Re:Why the FUD?

[Kokuyo]

Grow up, guys
Hey, what about all the girls around here?! Oh, wait, never mind...

Re:Why the FUD?

[Chilled urine.]

Grow up, guys

Hey, what about all the girls around here?! Oh, wait, never mind...

That's right, all us girls on Slashdot are alright quite grown up. Another downside to the cratering female enrollment in CS.

I wrote about this yesterday

[MarkWatson]

The old SugarCRM license had an advertising requirement that required a large advertisement on every page. One of my old customers ended up not using SugarCRM because of this.

Good also to see even wider GPL v3 adoption!

Re:I wrote about this yesterday

[Aladrin]

You seem to have failed to pick the spin off the news.

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:I wrote about this yesterday

[jkrise]

The old SugarCRM license had an advertising requirement that required a large advertisement on every page. One of my old customers ended up not using SugarCRM because of this. Despite all the positive PR spin about Sugar CRM moving to GPL3 for the Open Source edition, it is not the restrictions on this version that is holding customers back. Their support for Outlook Express and Outlook is very flaky, despite their so-called alliance with Microsoft.

Also, the Open source edition is quite limited compared to the priced editions. The license terms on these priced editions are the culprits, and many of the clauses would make Microsoft look like an angel by comparison. There is even a stipulation that you cannot have both editions on the same network - go figure!

Changing licenses to GPL3 will not win back customers for Sugar - they need to change their reputation. As Microsoft is learning, that takes a very long time - and is very difficult.

Re:I wrote about this yesterday

[gbjbaanb]

Yeah, but there is always VTiger

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?

[Fishead]

Under User Pressure... We just think it's a great license

which is it?

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how management and sales thinK. (OK, for loose definitions of the word think.) What constitutes a "great license" is DEFINED by their business environment - i.e. their users. They aren't strong enough in the market to dictate what a great license is on their own terms - I'm sure "the whole world pays us $100 a month" would be a great license (watch what Microsoft tries to move to for a definition of what a BUSINESS thinks is a great license) but since they can't have that they will blow with the wind.

Why V3?

[slashname3]

Why did they choose GPL V3? Why not choose GPL V2?

Re:Why V3?

[TheRaven64]

Why did they choose GPL V3? Why not choose GPL V2? Because 3 is one more than 2. In fact, it's 50% more. Why go with 2, when you can have 50% more at no extra cost?

Re:Why V3?

[Carewolf]

GPLv3 is a new, better and improved version of GPLv2 (should be obvious, shouldn't it?)

Re:Why V3?

[oliderid]

Because otherwise they wouldn't have made the headlines of various technical web sites. GPL V2 is so passé. GPL V3 is trendy.

Re:Why V3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I don't know....let's read their FAQ: http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/gplv3-faq.html

"SugarCRM believes the GPL v3 will become the standard for all open source licenses, and wanted to get a head start on adopting that standard."

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

GPLv3 is a new, * and * version of GPLv2

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 GPLv3? I imagine they would have a decent CRM or something that would tell them who their customers are and what they wanted. So why wasn't the users clamoring for the GPLv2 and why didn't they listen then?

Re:Why V3?

[lukisi]

Perhaps beacuse it deals with threats against the free software better than V2 did?

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:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

Every time I see someone talk about the four freedoms and how the GP{Lv3 does a better job, they seem to add to the original. Is it that the GPLv3 doesn't work as expected when considering them, or is it because the freedoms have actually changed.

Re:Why V3?

[david_thornley]

GPLv2 was written quite a few years ago, and things have changed since. At that time, neither Tivoization nor software patents were big deals.

Tivoization is when a manufacturer sells free software but doesn't let you change it on the machine you bought to use it on. Whether this is a problem is a matter of debate (Torvalds says no, Stallman says yes), but GPLv3 forbids it on consumer devices. I'm not sure if anybody had thought of it when GPLv2 was written.

Software patents are fairly new, and GPLv2 proved inadequate at protecting against them. GPLv3 was designed to protect against what abuses the FSF and correspondents could think of, although the fact that some of the patent language is quite specific doesn't give me confidence that GPLv3 is well future-proofed.

There are GPLv2 restrictions that no longer seem warranted. When GPLv2 was written, the FSF couldn't assume that everybody would have good net connections, so simply putting source code on a website or FTP server wasn't enough to satisfy distribution requirements (unless the binaries were available only on-line). Moreover, P2P networks were not around, and GPLv2 does not accomodate them well (everybody in the network may be distributing the binaries, while not being accountable for distributing the source). GPLv3 has provisions allowing P2P distribution, and does allow on-line source distribution in the general case.

There were other issues. GPLv2 was a US-centric license, while GPLv3 was designed for more international use. GPLv3 is more specific than GPLv2 on some issues.

Overall, I like GPLv3 better than GPLv2, although I can understand people who disagree (particularly on the Tivoization issue). It is better suited to today's more complicated software laws and practices, while remaining true to the same general principles. (Be careful about complaints about GPLv3, since many of them apply equally to GPLv2. There are people who don't like copyleft licenses, and many of them seem determined to trot out their old complaints against GPLv3 like they were something new.)

Re:Why V3?

[mabhatter654]

it's that the landscape has changed drastically since 1991. Companies got the DMCA thru which says legally if I put a password on something to "protect" content, you can't crack it... or tell people how. So companies immediately began using GPL source code but "encrypting" the binaries so YOU couldn't run the code..and they could legally sue you for it... that's a big change. Also, the patent clause has been in GPL2 but the wording was not enough. SCO and Microsoft were coming in making deals to allow infringement and "not to sue" companies (but not give them an actual patent license that would apply to the GPL work) for using OTHER people's GPL code, but they can't legally pass on the GPL code to other people! GPL3 was beefed up to "sink or swim" to remove that loophole.

Re:Why V3?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Tivoization is when a manufacturer sells free software but doesn't let you change it on the machine you bought to use it on. Whether this is a problem is a matter of debate (Torvalds says no, Stallman says yes), but GPLv3 forbids it on consumer devices. I'm not sure if anybody had thought of it when GPLv2 was written.

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, because it means that wile eg Tivo can't sell their boxes with GPLv3 firmware on them, they could perfectly well sell them with a bare-bones firmware and require a (automatic, of course) firmware update (to a version that does include GPLv3 stuff) before everything works fully. That section of the license seems stranger every time I read it...

Software patents are fairly new, and GPLv2 proved inadequate at protecting against them. GPLv3 was designed to protect against what abuses the FSF and correspondents could think of, although the fact that some of the patent language is quite specific doesn't give me confidence that GPLv3 is well future-proofed.

Yeah. I like the idea of that section, but the way they go about it makes me think of "enumerating badness".

Overall, I like GPLv3 better than GPLv2, although I can understand people who disagree (particularly on the Tivoization issue). It is better suited to today's more complicated software laws and practices, while remaining true to the same general principles. (Be careful about complaints about GPLv3, since many of them apply equally to GPLv2. There are people who don't like copyleft licenses, and many of them seem determined to trot out their old complaints against GPLv3 like they were something new.)

I'm one of those people, because I think that the Tivoization part is so poorly thought out that the goals of that section cannot be reconciled to those general principles (really, it's a fundamentally wrong direction to attack that problem from. The right direction is probably projects like OpenMoko). If it didn't have that section, I'd probably consider it a net gain (even with the mess they made of the patent section).

Re:Why V3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see someone talk about the four freedoms and how the GP{Lv3 does a better job, they seem to add to the original.

Not added to, just more precisely specified.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

Sure, and the GPLv3 does nothing to stop that with the CRM program in question.

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:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

GPLv2 was written quite a few years ago, and things have changed since. At that time, neither Tivoization nor software patents were big deals.

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 ability to give a patent license.

And to make things worse, I could make a deal with the sale of my third party program that places everyone who buys it in violation of the Anti-Novell-Microsoft clauses and forbid them from distributing a GPLv3 covered work. I'm Sure MS could do the same and not really give anything significant up in the process too.

Tivoization is when a manufacturer sells free software but doesn't let you change it on the machine you bought to use it on. Whether this is a problem is a matter of debate (Torvalds says no, Stallman says yes), but GPLv3 forbids it on consumer devices. I'm not sure if anybody had thought of it when GPLv2 was written.

I'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.

Software patents are fairly new, and GPLv2 proved inadequate at protecting against them. GPLv3 was designed to protect against what abuses the FSF and correspondents could think of, although the fact that some of the patent language is quite specific doesn't give me confidence that GPLv3 is well future-proofed.

Well, I don't think it is very future proof at all. I also think the GPLv2 implies that is you release something under the GPLv2 that it is open and accessible to everyone who gets that covered product under those terms. TO me that is a license to use the patent. Where the problems lie is where a company or a person doesn't have the rights to that patent, release something and now it cannot be used because of a patent problem. The GPLv3 addresses some of this by saying you have to have the ability to license the patent in order to license it under the GPLv3. I think this is the same way the GPLv2 handled things. Except when there is no patent until after it is popular and already released, we are in the same boat if the company or person with rights to the patent isn't the same ones who included it under the GPLv3.

There are GPLv2 restrictions that no longer seem warranted. When GPLv2 was written, the FSF couldn't assume that everybody would have good net connections, so simply putting source code on a website or FTP server wasn't enough to satisfy distribution requirements (unless the binaries were available only on-line). Moreover, P2P networks were not around, and GPLv2 does not accomodate them well (everybody in the network may be distributing the binaries, while not being accountable for distributing the source). GPLv3 has provisions allowing P2P distribution, and does allow on-line source distribution in the general case.

Yes, I can see these. And I think they are a good thing. However, Not everyone still has a good conection. So there needs to be a way for them to get access to it too. In some places, the internet is charged by the packet/bit/whatever which means that the $5.00 to mail a burnt CD c/would and up costing them several hundred online.

There were other issues. GPLv2 was a US-centric license, while GPLv3 was designed for more international use. GPLv3 is more specific than GPLv2 on some issues.

I'm not sure I see much of a change in this direction. However, I am not that familiar with the law outside the US so I cou

Re:Why V3?

[jimicus]

Well, I don't think it is very future proof at all.

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 of legal tricks to work around it. The Microsoft/Novell issue is only the best known example.

So where do you draw the line? I don't see GPLv3 lasting 16 years - Open Source software is too important in todays marketplace for the lawyers and developers with families to feed to be allowed to throw their hands up and say "We can't work around this". That certainly wasn't true in 1991.

One thing I think will be beneficial - it serves as a reminder to those who would invent legal perversions to ignore the license that the FSF is quite prepared to update their license to take account of such perversions, and the code you use may move to a newer version of the license leaving you having to choose between honouring it as was intended or privately maintaining an older version.

Re:Why V3?

[rtechie]

'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:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

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 of legal tricks to work around it. The Microsoft/Novell issue is only the best known example.

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 indecation that these product would have been issued under the GPL at all. Novell has alway maintained this is what it was about; making linux and windows easier to inter operate. Microsoft made some utterances about patent claims the Novell strongly denied them The FSF used it as a rallying cry to get support behind the carnation of the GPLv3 that wasn't finding much support at the time.

This is proved time and time again when the details of all these deals come out and the reaction from the FOSS community is that it doesn't cover anything, they got shafted the deals. And of course they are whoever entered the arrangement with MS. Well the reasons it look like someone got shafted is because the deals never were intended to do what the GPLv3 supporters claimed they would. Now we have a clause in the GPLv3 that can potentially stop a large majority of people from using the GPLv3 in their projects.

So where do you draw the line? I don't see GPLv3 lasting 16 years - Open Source software is too important in todays marketplace for the lawyers and developers with families to feed to be allowed to throw their hands up and say "We can't work around this". That certainly wasn't true in 1991.

It can easily be worked around under three conditions. One, We have to accept that there will be situations beyond the control of the GPL. Something like third part patents. Two, Be broad and specific with intentional definitions that aren't hidden behind some legal mumbo jumbo to impress the dimwitted. Three and probably most important, Actually defining the spirit of the GPL and what it is attempting to achieve so it isn't a moving target in the future and ties this intent into the clauses.

Something as simple as "the use of a covered work, release, addition to or whatever else places you under the license of the GPLvX requires that any modifications or changes that you make or in source code alone are done so with the full intent of leaving the freedoms intact and allowing all users who come by your work, whether modified or original and on the hardware it was distributed on when you have control over that hardware. This includes patent or attempts to use technical measure to stop people from using the freedoms that the GPL is attempting to protect."

One thing I think will be beneficial - it serves as a reminder to those who would invent legal perversions to ignore the license that the FSF is quite prepared to update their license to take account of such perversions, and the code you use may move to a newer version of the license leaving you having to choose between honouring it as was intended or privately maintaining an older version.

I don't really think it will be a privately maintained older version. I think there will be enough interest in a forked version of most of the popular stuff that there will be public support on it. Also I see microsoft pulling some stunts that will make the GPLv3 about useless for new users on anything outside getting a free program. This will probably hit Samba the hardest but it is hard to tell. There are enough project that aren't willing to switch or simply aren't able to switch to the GPLv3 that will sustain a fork of most the common libraries and quite a bit of the other stuff too.

Time will be the deciding factor in a lot of this. One of the things around time will be about rushing others into switching. The GPLv3 is incompatible with the GPLv2 so you cannot mix and match a lot of the inter working and I think forcing upgrades by virtue of upgrading a library or something will spark enough disdain that forks will be more common then you think.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

No, it was founded to give you the freedom to write a driver to run a printer as a printer on a separate general purpose computer. It wasn't formed to hack the firmware of the printer into a computer controlled routing machine. I don't see how starting something to get a device to work as the device should on a separate device is being construed into turning a TIVO into something other then a TIVO.

Nice troll but not quite good enough. He started it because he needed to fix a bug in the printer driver. BUG != added functionality. Unless, like the four freedoms, this story has changed too.

Re:Why V3?

[rtechie]

Um, no. From the freaking Wikipedia article:

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 inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This one experience convinced Stallman of the ethical need to require free software.

This is pretty much how I heard the story back in 1991. So if it's a lie, he's been telling it for a long time.

This is similar to the Tivo situation in that it is ADDING a feature to the printer. I think that Tivo hackers would very much like th ability to add features to the Tivo software, like an improved search function, different skins, commercial skip, or other features. The ability to turn a Tivo into a general purpose PC or a router is hardly what people want, as in most cases it would be a waste of money.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

This is similar to the Tivo situation in that it is ADDING a feature to the printer. I think that Tivo hackers would very much like th ability to add features to the Tivo software, like an improved search function, different skins, commercial skip, or other features. The ability to turn a Tivo into a general purpose PC or a router is hardly what people want, as in most cases it would be a waste of money.

Lol. He modified the driver by using another driver and the changes were on the computer not the printer. It is exactly the same as the tivo in how it played out, you can use the software on another computer not on the printer/tivo.

The differene between that recount of events and the original recount is that he modified the software of the printer with the software of another printer of similar design not that he changed the stuff on the printer itself. I know it is popular to read into things and it is fun and interesting to do this to make your point. But it isn't historically accurate. To anyone who has read the real version it looks like your grasping to reasons to support your side.

I don't know why this is something people are insisting on doing. Do their ethics change with their ability to accomplish things? Do they change with their needs? People have known about that scenario since before Tivo was an issue, are we to think that we can only understand it after Tivo problems came about? I suggest this nonsense just go away before it places some astigmatism on free and open source software and the community fractures into separate subgroups like what happened in the 70's and 80's with the hackers. Of course Stallman being part of it would be the only similarity outside the spirit.

Re:Why V3?

[Anonymous Coward]

If more precisely specified means the same thing then your wrong. Stuff has been added. You cannot get around that.

Re:Why V3?

[mabhatter654]

running the program is the "0" right of all users of free software. nobody should be able to prevent that. Remember, GPL recognizes SOURCE code.. not binary. All software follows that rule, but the FSF is about the actual code first, if you can't get the code, by definition the program is NEVER free. What GPL3 changed is that first, using GPL3 code to reprogram your hardware can never be claimed as "reverse engineering" or breaking the DMCA no matter how they encrypt the system. Second, the code the manufacturer provides must be able to run on the system. If there are keys to hardware locks, they must be provided. (note, it may not be the SAME keys, they could offer a public and private key to the hardware, but it has to use ALL the hardware features) One thing I thought was written poorly was the part about encrypted data and services. Those are outside the hardware and shouldn't be accessible if that's the contract. But the system itself should function. on a PVR, think that YOU should be able to reprogram the device to watch whatever you want record, skip, move to devices, etc.. but they're not necessary to unlock your cable card or PPV recorded shows, or allow you onto their channel guides because they can't prove you paid and are following rules for the content you agreed to with the other parties.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

running the program is the "0" right of all users of free software. nobody should be able to prevent that.

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.

Remember, GPL recognizes SOURCE code.. not binary. All software follows that rule, but the FSF is about the actual code first, if you can't get the code, by definition the program is NEVER free. What GPL3 changed is that first, using GPL3 code to reprogram your hardware can never be claimed as "reverse engineering" or breaking the DMCA no matter how they encrypt the system.

Well actually, It stops devices from being made that use the GPLv3 code or covered works to be viewed in that manor. It doesn't allow you to use GPLv3 covered works on any device and get that protection if you aren't the one who made the device or marketed it.

Also, the GPLv3 license only covers GPLv3 protected works and not the entire device in itself. Now this seems like a pedantic notion but I don't know if you just worded your statement poorly or if you actually believe that the GPLv3 stops that form happening on the device in it's entirety. Tivo can very well drop the tuner card, video and storage portions of the DVR disk under a proprietary license, continue to block access to those portions of the machine in the same way they do now and as long as you can modify and install the GPLv3 covered works, they can turn off the other aspects of the device and continue to keep the same restrictions. That's right, sadly the GPLv3 doesn't cover the entire device only the portions that us the GPLv3 covered works and as far as they are connected to the device. Tivo can comply with the GPLV3 and still leave you without a functional DVR.

If there are keys to hardware locks, they must be provided. (note, it may not be the SAME keys, they could offer a public and private key to the hardware, but it has to use ALL the hardware features)

Well, no. It only needs the keys to the covered works and the limits the GPLv3 impose on the device only pertains to the covered works and the hardware that uses. There are a lot of misconceptions floating around about the GPLv3 that make claims that simply will never hold up if tried.

One thing I thought was written poorly was the part about encrypted data and services. Those are outside the hardware and shouldn't be accessible if that's the contract. But the system itself should function. on a PVR, think that YOU should be able to reprogram the device to watch whatever you want record, skip, move to devices, etc.. but they're not necessary to unlock your cable card or PPV recorded shows, or allow you onto their channel guides because they can't prove you paid and are following rules for the content you agreed to with the other parties.

I agree with this to an extent. I just don't agree with forcing the manufacturer into letting this happen and I don't agree with it being controlled by software licenses.

Re:Why V3?

[rtechie]

and the original recount

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 anticipated.

And even if your details on the story WERE correct, Stallman agrees with me that the INTENT was to allow people to modify the software inside their hardware.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

(sigh).. All that stuff was controlled by the software on the computer. Nothing he was trying to do would have touched what would have been considered the firmware at the time. I doubt that Stallman or anyone at that time had even thought about how the firmware would/could control stuff like it does today.

It is simple, the story has changed to meet the needs people want it to meet today. Give me the minutes of that specific meeting which include this talk and I might think otherwise. Sam William's book has been out and about for a long time and never that I know of has it been criticized for it's inaccuracy before the need to embrace and extend that we see today.

Re:Why V3?

[rtechie]

Give me the minutes of that specific meeting which include this talk and I might think otherwise. If you won't take Stallman's word for it I don't know what to tell you. The description for Williams' book is vague enough that it could be firmware, or it could mean driver software or something else. When *I* heard Stallman talk about it he was clearly talking about firmware, and his recent public comments seem to support this interpretation. And even if you ARE right, it doesn't change the fact that Stallman clearly INTENDED that people be allowed to modify firmware. That's what he's been saying publicly.

In Stallman's mind, the controversial sections of GPL V3 merely close a loophole. Do you really believe that Stallman INTENDED to allow vendors to sell proprietary "black boxes" based mostly or entirely on GPL code? You don't know Stallman very well if you do.

Re:Why V3?

[sumdumass]

If I had Stallmans' word for it back when it was said, I would take it. But all I have is people's renditions of what was said. Of course since stallman has changed the story from what others claim, it is hard to take his modern word for it. especially when it appears he changed it in order to advance something.

In Stallman's mind, the controversial sections of GPL V3 merely close a loophole. Do you really believe that Stallman INTENDED to allow vendors to sell proprietary "black boxes" based mostly or entirely on GPL code? You don't know Stallman very well if you do.

I don't see why not. Especially when the GPLv3 allows that specific thing to happen when they are commercial devices like the printer he hacked originally. I'm not sure how or why you missed that. I'm not trying to know stallman very well either. He isn't the reason I am interested in GPLed works. But it does seem that you don't know him as well as you though too. Why would it be ok for a device that is intended for corporate use to be allowed to do what Tivo is doing but not one destined for consumer hands? Do corporate consumers have less rights then private consumers? OR does it all have to do with being pissed at Tivo.

PS, I know the answer, I'm just throwing that out to see if you do or if ythe answer has as many faces as the entire printer story.

Software licensing announcements

[DerCed]

Is there going to be a Slashdot news post for every open source software which adopts the GPLv3? This is getting a bit ridiculous :-(

Finally they've chosen...

[AlXtreme]

SugarCRM has been high on my list of projects claiming to be "open source" when they really weren't (according to the OSI-definition atleast, feel free to flame me that OSI has nothing to do with this). Free Distribution is #1 in the open source definition, and projects like SugarCRM forbid this (for instance for commercial purposes).

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:Finally they've chosen...

[sepluv]

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.

Re:Finally they've chosen...

[Kashra]

Projects that hang in-between just muddle the waters.

Yes, because nobody can think of a project that might not want (or be able) to be "free" but might still want to provide as much source for the community as possible. If its not completely free, it may as well be Microsoft!

Now back to the real world.

Oddly titled thread

[HellYeahAutomaton]

What kind of secrets will they reveal "under pressure" in a dark room with a bright
light swinging back and forth? Yes, they seem to sound like they couldn't handle
interrogation.

put a fork in 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

they should just go closed source while they still have a chance to profit from it.

it's gonna be a hell of a day!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SPZI.PK

VTiger

[Anonymous Coward]

VTiger forked off from them when they first changed the license. Maybe this will result in a decent working outlook plugin for Sugar too.

Thanks but No thanks.

[Lumpy]

Sugar CRM Open source is great until you want to use it with Outlook integration. Then their outlook plugin costs you a arm and leg per PC and does not work with the Open source version.

We completely switched to http://www.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:Thanks but No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, I would prefer that we dont use Look-out and orfice at work"

grow up. this kind of attitude is a regal bore.

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was trying to show disrespect. Was he successful?

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[Lord of Hyphens]

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.

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[Lumpy]

NO! I will not grow up, only the boring people do that. I am also the guy in the managers meeting that will interrupt and say "HE SAID DOO-DOO!" when someone says anything like that. It makes all the managers laugh and breaks the somber attitude in the meetings, the Director of operations loves my attitude.

In fact he once said, "I like your style, you're nothing like the other IT managers that have a stick firmly up their ass."

So what kind of stick do you have?

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[ScorpFromHell]

And for those who do not want PHP (I, personally, am not averse to PHP, so pls don't flame me) or otherwise too, can look at openCRX. It is a J2EE based app & can be built for high scalability. To change its code though you need to know UML! Its built on openMDX, an open source MDA tool. Only, I haven't been able to figure out which open source UML tool is right for working with the UML they provide.

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[rtechie]

Please mod the parent up.

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 include the Outlook connectors for example. Yet they intend to keep the "Open Source" logo on the commercial versions, in violation of the GPLv3. Make no mistake, they are NOT releasing all their code. This is just more stalling and manipulation.

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Richie,
I take it you are Richie from the vTiger team. I tried your product, and I am afraid it was buggy as hell (as of 2 months ago.) I have since moved to sugarCRM and have found it fine.

Maybe things will be different in the future - but I still look at the vTiger forums on occasion to re-enforce my decision to move to sugarCRM and it seems that it has been justified. People are still seem to be having a lot of problems in the latest version.

You guys just aren't in the sugarcrm league yet with the quality of your releases, and maybe not for a few years from my perspective. Your main draw card has been that your pure open source - thats all good and fine, but you have to be able to deliver a working product to market to really offer value. The other big issue with vTiger has been the big let downs in your release schedule - you have to stop over promising on your dates ... although I know that can be tough. At the end of the day I wish you the best of luck with your vTiger project, but I suggest you don't create FUD by stating that the open source developers have mainly moved to vTiger - it doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see.

End of the day, this is just my experience, I suggest people try both before committing to either product.

cheers,
stuart

Re:Thanks but No thanks.

[rtechie]

Actually, I'm not. I'm someone in exactly the same situation as you (maybe). I needed a free CRM system for non-profit use. I looked at SugarCRM Community Edition and was disappointed to find it was essentially broken without paying big bucks to Sugar, which is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I was basically going to give up on SugarCRM before I discovered vTiger, which was forked for EXACTLY this reason. vTiger certainly is buggy, but it also provides more of a complete package for deployment. Especially the Outlook plugin, which was important for my client.

We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[Russ Nelson]

Sheesh, where do people get this nonsense from?? We do NOT get paid to approve licenses!!

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:We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[mwvdlee]

My bad, granted, no money is involved.

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:We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[Hatta]

Last I checked there is no trademark on the term "open source". So what if it's a descriptive term? Well that means anyone can use it for description. Since you don't have a trademark, you don't get to control the definition of that descriptive term.

Re:We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[david_thornley]

There's no trademark on "open source" (in any capitalization). There is on "OSI-certified", and the OSI is well within its rights to take action if anybody describes software as OSI-certified while not using an OSI-approved license.

I rather doubt that there is much common use of "open source" as an equivalent to "OSI-certified". How many people would object if a software package was called open source, while the license was GPLv3? Unless the OSI is slow to update its web pages, GPLv3 is not on the approved list right now. How many people will look up the OSI list to make sure before calling software "open source"?

I don't want people to call software free or open source when it doesn't conform to the usual licensing standards, but I don't see any way to enforce it.

Re:We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[morcego]

Sheesh, where do people get this nonsense from?? We do NOT get paid to approve licenses!!

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 number of approved licenses more than tripled, with lots of licenses that never passed through the mailing list. That was when I got disgusted with OSI, left the list, and started pretending it doesn't exit.

This, of course, was some years ago. 4 or more, for sure. Maybe even 6 or 7.

I'm not saying you do get paid. I sincerely believe you don't. On the other hand, I'm not surprised by any "holier than thou" position coming from OSI.

Maybe things changed since I left. I doubt it, but it is possible. "Trustworthy", specially regarding people, can be analyzed by "do actions agree with words?".

Re:We do NOT get paid to approve!!

[Kalriath]

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? There's your issue right there, you don't actually have ANY trademark on "Open Source". Try using the truth next time.

Yuo Fail IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Most. LLok at the percent of the *BSD A conscious stand good manners Romeo and Juliet

That's nice and all, but WTF does SugarCRM do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at their site. It's a bunch of buzzwords. I can't figure out what it does except that it is OS independent and is built on open source.

Re:That's nice and all, but WTF does SugarCRM do?

[Archangel Michael]

CRM = Customer Resource Management

Basically it is ACT on drugs (Steroids, pot, heroin and Cialis).

Re:That's nice and all, but WTF does SugarCRM do?

[ScorpFromHell]

Its a CRM app ... so it means that it does stuff to help out the sales guys, the marketing folks & the support blokes. So now you know which types of application you should (not?) be working upon if you are pissed off with those calls (both that you receive as well as the ones that you have to make sometimes *gasp*)

Accounts, Contacts, Calendar, Activities, Products, Pricing, Leads, Opportunities, Quotes, Orders, Incidents, Service Requests, etc. are some of the features available in most CRM applications.

Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Linus on this one. For the life of me I can't understand what this sucking up to RMS is about.
Linus himself does not think GPLv3 is a good thing. So why do people keep adopting it.

Under Pressure?

[Dareth]

Dum dum dum da da dum dum... Under User Pressure ... Dum dum dum da da dum dum... Sugar CRM Baby! *oops, wrong song*

Above excerpt(s) used under fair use rules as satire.

What is this SugarCRM?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SugarCRM

"3110 known GPLv2 projects"?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

So far, something like 235 out of over 3110 known GPLv2 projects have move to the GPLv3.

Freshmeat lists 23243 projects under the GPL category.

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?

Re:"3110 known GPLv2 projects"?

[aardvarkjoe]

His point was that freshmeat lists more than seven times as many GPL projects as the number you quoted, and that's still a low count. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several times that many GPLed programs and projects around.

Re:"3110 known GPLv2 projects"?

[sumdumass]

ok, so the ratio of GPLv3 programs to GPLv2 programs are even lower.

I see that I didn't notice the value of the number was that large. So Yea, I guess it is a lot more.

Well that's weird!!

[jgarra23]

"'We just think it's a great license,' "

If they're under pressure why would they say that??

Re:Well that's weird!!

[DragonWriter]

If they're under pressure why would they say that??

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 official announcement was that they were leaving "to spend more time with the family".

Re:Well that's weird!!

[jgarra23]

What do you expect them to say if they are under pressure from users?

I would expect them to come up with a better lie than that, especially if the pressure aspect is public. I understand that marketing is BS but at least BS in a way that placates your savvy consumers while exciting your gullible ones.

It's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

They went with GPLv3 so they can sell their commercial version without fear of competition from their own GPL'd software in an web-based ASP setting. Had they gone with GPLv2, this would have been permissible.

The thing is - are dual commercial/GPL shops allowed to incorporate user-submitted GPL patches in their _commercial_ version of the software? This is a legal grey area in this dual commercial/GPL scheme that many companies use.

Soda politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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. "

Is that anything like what Trolltech had to endure?

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:Hey, waitasec...

[Kalriath]

How childish.

Incoming what? Snide FSF fanboy jeers? Because there's nothing else that'll be incoming just because Sugar have agreements with Microsoft.

infOrmative maremare

[Anonymous Coward]

itSelf. You can't

Why V2?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could pick either one, another one or write their own (they did this before). But why should they have picked up the GPLv2 rather than GPLv3?

Hey DUDE.. shhhh.... !!

[anilg]

Dude, chill.. that was supposed to go unnoticed under the MS radar.

The joke?

[DrSkwid]

I wasn't aware there was only one joke in the world.
Perhaps you are a fucking know-all that knows nothing.

You should consider the possibility that I actually know wtf I am talking about and you don't.

Forking?

[HvitRavn]

This means that SugarCRM can finally be forked? In that case, I will be happy to help out fixing the SOAP api they completely broke when upgrading from 4.5.0 to 4.5.1. Not to mention performance improvements and generally fixing their utterly horrible spaghetti ravioli code.

Permission, or obligation?

[Pfhorrest]

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 less restrictive license than other copyright license, but it is still more restrictive than no license at all.

So what? The point stands that a restrictive clause can have the net effect of increasing liberty. Only if that restriction merely prohibits others from restricting each other. A restriction that obligates others to help each other does *not* increase liberty, even though it accomplishes a nice thing (though by not-so-nice means).

I would argue that that's not truly free at all. There's no guarantee that I will be free to modify the code of such a licensed work. If they've distributed the code public domain, you're be free to modify it all you want. And in a world free of intellectual property (I don't just oppose copyright, but patents as well; trademark is more of a fraud-related thing), there'd be little to no incentive for them not to share the code with those who wanted it. But if for some reason someone wants to distribute a compiled program and not the code, who are you to tell them that they HAVE to distribute the code, just because they also used code you've distributed? They're not stopping you, or anyone else, from using or distributing the code you released; they're just, for some reason or another, not releasing their new code, or only distributing a copy of your binary and not also a copy of your code. Yes, I agree, it's a nice thing to have easy access to the code for everything, but it's not something you have a legitimate ethical claim to. It's *good* of others to share the code they write, and to help people who they share programs with get the code to those programs, but it's not *wrong* of them to refrain from doing so. The only relevant thing which would be *wrong* is if they restricted others from distributing something.

In short: refraining from helping someone do something is not equivalent to restricting someone from doing something. There can be unjustly excessive obligations just as well as there can be unjustly excessive restrictions. In the modal logic of this all, an obligation is just a restriction of a negation, or conversely, a restriction is just an obligation of a negation. That is, to say that you are restricted (properly speaking, "forbidden") from doing X, is to say you are obligated to not do X; and to say you are obligated to do Y, is to say you are forbidden from not doing Y. But liberty is freedom from obligation or restriction; liberty is permission. Liberty is saying "you are not forbidden from doing X" or "you are not obligated to do X", which are NOT equivalent to "you are obligated to do X" or "you are forbidden from doing X", respectively.

The GPL exchanges restrictions for obligations, which are really just another form of restriction. Liberty is freedom from restriction and obligation. Liberty is permission. And the GPL is NOT permissive; it is obliging.

Re:one word... High-5'er

[davidsyes]

Sweet and slowww, but splenda'd...