Talk:SugarCRM/Archives/2012
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
AFD result - keep
 | This article was nominated for deletion on January 9, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
2008 status of attribution requirements?
After they switched to GPLv3, did they drop all attribution requirements, or did they introduce new attribution requirements based on GPLv3's 7b allowance for "reasonable ... author attributions"[1]? --Gronky (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Gronky, they did indeed jam their mandatory advertising requirement into the new licence (starting with Sugar Community Edition 5.0) as an addendum to GPLv3 using clause 7b's "preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it" as an excuse. Specifically, each and every PHP file includes in its header a requirement that it and all derivative works display on all user interface screens the provided graphical "Powered by SugarCRM" logo or (if technical considerations preclude that) just the words "Powered by SugarCRM". I've just re-confirmed that the requirement is still present in the latest beta, SCE 5.5 Beta[2]. The net effect remains almost as suppressive of third-party commercial usage as all of their previous badgeware licenses, and I personally doubt that clauses deterring other vTiger-style commercial forks are what FSF had in mind by the phrase "author attributions". It would be good to document the matter in a neutral fashion, rather than just supporting SugarCRM, Inc.'s propaganda push.
(Note that most SugarCRM, Inc. references to the licensing don't even mention the addendum[3] at all.)
Licensing
On the Comparison of CRM systems page, SugarCRM's licnese is listed as AGPL3. If I understand correctly, this is only partly true. A large part of SugarCRM is AGPL3 (with modifications, see above) and part is proprietary (which is misnamed 'commercial' on the Comparison page). Also, SugarCRM is available from the SugarCRM company as SaaS, which should presumably also be mentioned. Unless I hear objections from people more knowledgeable than me on this, I will change that page. --Macrakis (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)