decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
SugarCRM Goes GPLv3!
Wednesday, July 25 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT

Not that I wouldn't love to bask in the glow of congratulations by leaving the previous article the top story a little longer, like for days, but there is big news to share with you: SugarCRM has just announced that their next major Sugar Community Edition release will go GPLv3! Here's what CEO John Roberts had to say:
"We are proud to adopt the GPL V3 with our next major Sugar Community Edition release," said John Roberts, CEO and co-founder of SugarCRM Open Source Project. "We would like to thank the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for leading such an important effort to deliver the most modern FOSS license. The FSF undertook a very difficult process and incorporated many diverse developer and user needs and combined them into a fair and just representation of what FOSS means to our communities."

This resolves some issues in a very pleasant way. Why did they do it? Their GPLv3 FAQ page explains:

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.

I agree with their assessment, and I'm very excited by this news. Sometimes the media misunderstands the openness and frankness of conversations in the FOSS community when issues arise, imagining it means the community is breaking apart. It doesn't. It means it's functioning, and as a result, things get worked through.

In the email announcing the news, Roberts added this:

The GPL is the most widely used open source license in the market today with roughly 70 percent of open source projects using the GPL. The GPL v3 protects developer innovation while respecting the rights of others' to innovate and share. Adoption of the GPL v3 for Sugar Community Edition will increase compatibility between Sugar projects and other popular open source projects, allowing for greater innovation and co-creation in our user community.

Palamida's GPLv3 conversion list is up to 212, by the way. Well, it will be 213 now, I guess. Here's more info from the press release:

SugarCRM Inc., the world’s leading provider of commercial open source customer relationship management (CRM) software, today announced the upcoming release of Sugar Community Edition 5.0 will be licensed under the new Version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL is the most widely used free and open source (FOSS) license in the market....

Sugar Community Edition 5.0 is expected to be released in the September timeframe, and introduces innovative platform features, new CRM functionality and community development tools.

"I'm pleased to see the SugarCRM open source project adopt the GPL v3," said Eben Moglen, executive director of the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) and outside counsel to the Free Software Foundation, who played a key role in the drafting process of the new GPL v3 license. "We believe that sharing knowledge is good. We encourage other important free and open source software projects to take this step and join us in making better software."


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )