Slashdot Mirror
SugarCRM 6 Released, But Is It Open Source?
darthcamaro writes "SugarCRM markets itself as a professional open source company and this week released version 6 of its Sugar platform. But the main new feature is a new user interface that isn't available to users of the community version — it's only available to paying users. No they don't claim to be open core either, they claim it's all open source, even if you have to pay for it. '"Open source doesn't mean free and was never really meant to mean free," Martin Schneider, senior director of communications at SugarCRM, said. "Open source runs through everything we do, it enables us to be transparent and gives customers more power. We are an open source company and it's why we're better than proprietary companies."'"
Well, Microsoft will certainly insist so. As with this SugarCRM crap though I and many others will disagree.
OK, you are free to use that term freely.
Learn to love Alaska
If there were it wouldn't be open source. Anything that would prevent this would prevent you from modifying and distributing your modified version. That is the core of open source and without that ability a license isn't open source.
No, there is no reason I know of that would prevent an open source license from preventing indiscriminate distribution. Primarily, it requires that all rights that you have be granted to anyone that you distribute them to.
If you can cite a requirement that an open source license must allow indiscriminate distribution, then I will willingly eat my words.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
When did I deny section 1? I just said it isn't the relevant section.
Ok, I'll clarify for the intellect impaired: "You dismiss section 1 as being applicable, so I won't deal with it here."
Change the title and you'd fall under section 3, package it alongside the source to any of the required libraries and you'd fall under section 1.
Neither of these were stated conditions. The argument was that you could just buy it, and distribute it without change, and without aggregating it.
Any way you slice it, there is no license that could in any practical manner prevent free redistribution and still be open source let alone free software.
I never said anything about practicality. I said that it could be possible to construct a license that fit the open source definition, yet still did not allow indiscriminate redistribution. (That one can restrict it to only aggregate redistributions means not indiscriminate.)
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
That's nice. However, there are other sections besides section 1. They aren't there just to help with the feng shui of the site.
Naturally, and I'd be happy to cover any of the other sections.
Section 3 provides that one can freely distribute modifications and derivative works. We weren't talking about a modified or derivative work, we were talking about redistributing the original.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Wrong.
OSI invented the term, so their definition is the valid one. If you want another definition, try inventing a new term.
Despite your attempt at petty insulting, you're kinda making a good case why it may be worth paying money for the original, and why there's practical differences between allowing redistributions of unmodified versus repackaged versions of the product.
While some might consider pictures of dicks being sucked an added bonus, increasing the value of the package, others might prefer just the basic package.
By the time every open source zealot has had their hands on this work, and made their own repackaging, who's to know how many of these have even worse sorts of malware included.
All of a sudden, paying for the real deal doesn't seem like such a bad option. Requiring repackaging disallows the indescriminate copying, thereby potentially creating a jungle of less trustworhty versions for those looking to get the product gratis.
The OSI hold a trade mark on the term open source so yes, they do get a monopoly on it and its use.