...making Linux just a little more fun!
Rick Moen [rick at linuxmafia.com]
By the way, I've just now reminded Bruce Perens of his kind offer, last February, to let Prof. Moglen know about the latest SugarCRM ploy. I've stressed that we'd be glad to hear any feedback, if Prof. Moglen has time. I'll let LG know if/when I hear back.
To correct my below-quoted wording, strictly speaking, SugarCRM's latest licensing doesn't literally replicate the "_exact same_ badgeware clause" as in the prior proprietary licence, but it's really close: As written, the licensing ends up requiring derivative works to display the firm's trademarked logo or equivalent text (if technology used doesn't support displaying logos) on _each and every user interface page_ of SugarCRM's codebase that the derivative uses.
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 07:52:26 -0800 From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Courier vs Dovecot for IMAPQuoting Daniel Pittman ([email protected]):
> Jason White <[email protected]> writes:
> > Zimbra is distributed under the Yahoo Public Licence, which isn't > > listed on the OSI Web site.
That's because it's proprietary -- and because Zimbra (now Yahoo) deliberately avoided submitting it for OSI certification, knowing it would be denied.
> It is basically the MPL, and reasonably free, from my research.
It's a "badgeware" proprietary licence that deliberately impairs third-party commercial usage through mandatory advertising notices forced on third parties at runtime for all derivative works, one of a series of such licences produced by Web 2.0 / ASP / Software as a Service companies that carefully avoid seeking OSI licence certification, because they know they can't get it. Non-free.
In YPL's case, the clause that makes it non-free is 3.2:
3.2 - In any copy of the Software or in any Modification you create,
You must retain and reproduce, any and all copyright, patent, trademark,
and attribution notices that are included in the Software in the same
form as they appear in the Software. This includes the preservation of
attribution notices in the form of trademarks or logos that exist within
a user interface of the Software.
> OTOH, not all components of Zimbra are covered under it, so the whole > thing is kind of non-free, depending on your tastes. > > I believe the entire OS edition is freely available, though.
This is a very typical marketing tactic for badgeware: There is a "public licence" (badgeware) version to entice new users, that's left buggy, feature-shy, and poorly documented. If those users then try to submit bugs, or request fixes, or inquire about customisations, the sales staff then launches an all-out effort to upsell them to the "commercial version". (***COUGH*** SugarCRM ***COUGH***).
----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:49:58 -0800 From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Courier vs Dovecot for IMAPQuoting Dave Hall ([email protected]):
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 07:52 -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > > This is a very typical marketing tactic for badgeware: There is a > > "public licence" (badgeware) version to entice new users, that's left > > buggy, feature-shy, and poorly documented. If those users then try to > > submit bugs, or request fixes, or inquire about customisations, the > > sales staff then launches an all-out effort to upsell them to the > > "commercial version". (***COUGH*** SugarCRM ***COUGH***). > > SugarCRM does deserve some credit, they have abondonded their MPL > derived badgeware license for GPLv3. See > http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/new-in-sugar/sugar-5.0.html#Community
Were you aware of exactly how badly one can mislead people, by telling the truth but omitting the most crucial facts? Now, of course, far be it from yr. humble correspondent to impute an intent to mislead to anyone without very strong evidence indeed. Absent that evidence, one can only assume the most remarkably accidental mishap, instead.
Let's start at http://www.sugarforge.org/frs/?group_id=6 (reached eventually from the http://www.sugarcrm.com/ front page, after a bit of hunting. Download the 13 MB archive of http://www.sugarforge.org/frs/download.php/4902/SugarCE-5.2.0.zip, described as Sugar Community Edition 5.2.0 .
Is it GPL v.3? Looks pretty good when you look at install.php:
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under * the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as published by the * Free Software Foundation with the addition of the following permission added * to Section 15 as permitted in Section 7(a): FOR ANY PART OF THE COVERED WORK * IN WHICH THE COPYRIGHT IS OWNED BY SUGARCRM, SUGARCRM DISCLAIMS THE WARRANTY * OF NON INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. [etc.]
But hang on: What's this, just under the bit about "You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License..." and the paragraph explaining how to write to SugarCRM, Inc. headquarters?
* The interactive user interfaces in modified source and object code versions * of this program must display Appropriate Legal Notices, as required under * Section 5 of the GNU General Public License version 3. * * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU General Public License version 3, * these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the "Powered by * SugarCRM" logo. If the display of the logo is not reasonably feasible for * technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words * "Powered by SugarCRM".
So, basically they've used a "legal notices" clause of GPLv3 to slide the _exact same_ badgeware clause into the code that they had before. Do they mention that they're not using GPLv3 but rather GPLv3 with a modifier that causes their licensing to be proprietary, and not free software at all? Not that I've seen.[1]
But I'm sure that that's absolutely coincidental. I mean, I wouldn't want to accuse them of trying to fool anyone intentionally. I'm sure they'll get around to making sure everyone knows they're still using the same old proprietary licensing. Any day now.
Eleven months ago (last Feb. 11th), we editors of _Linux Gazette_ noticed this..., er,... unfortunate mishap, and, as we happened to be discussing it with Bruce Perens, Bruce offered to call Prof. Moglen's attention to it -- so that Prof. Moglen would realise that free advertising like http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2007/tc20070726_089940.htm had probably been a mistake on his part.
I am uncertain whether Bruce in fact has yet spoken to Prof. Moglen. However, I do hope he does, and that Prof. Moglen reconsiders the (in effect) endorsement, which in my view SugarCRM has very much not deserved.
[1] In the name of full disclosure, this trickery is mentioned in passing in the "SugarCRM GPL v3 FAQ", http://www.sugarforge.org/content/faq/gplv3.php, which claims that "Sugar Community Edition conforms to the attribution provisions in GPL v3 Section 7". This, of course, is... um... accidentally and unfortunately misleading, in itself, because GPLv3 section 7 is not about attribution provisions. It is about required legal notices (e.g., trademark) and other permitted supplementary terms. Clause 7b says that "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it" are permitted, but I very much doubt that FSF had in mind required, immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives -- which has the obvious effect of severely impairing freedom of third-party commercial use.
----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <[email protected]> -----
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:12:34 -0800 From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Courier vs Dovecot for IMAPI wrote:
> [1] In the name of full disclosure, this trickery is mentioned in > passing in the "SugarCRM GPL v3 FAQ", > http://www.sugarforge.org/content/faq/gplv3.php, which claims that > "Sugar Community Edition conforms to the attribution provisions in GPL > v3 Section 7". This, of course, is... um... accidentally and > unfortunately misleading, in itself, because GPLv3 section 7 is not > about attribution provisions. It is about required legal notices > (e.g., trademark) and other permitted supplementary terms. Clause 7b > says that "Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal > notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate > Legal Notices displayed by works containing it" are permitted, but I > very much doubt that FSF had in mind required, immutable runtime > display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface > screen of the program and all derivatives -- which has the obvious > effect of severely impairing freedom of third-party commercial use.
Relevant to that, here's what I wrote to Bruce Perens in the context of a private discussion between us _Linux Gazette_ staffers and Bruce:
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:43:47 -0800 From: Rick Moen <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: Bruce Perens <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Re: [TAG] Bruce Perens on licence proliferation In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> X-Mas: Bah humbug. X-gazette-tag: Rick Moen User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Quoting Bruce Perens ([email protected]): [Current SugarCRM licence gotcha:]----- End forwarded message -----> [RM: Redacting an opinion Bruce stated, which I've not asked his > permission to quote]They fit it in as an allegedly "specified reasonable legal notice or author attribution" under GPLv3 clause 7b: 7. Additional Terms. [...] Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: [...] b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; SugarCRM, Inc. specifically imposes this clause within the SugarCE-5.0.0a.zip (Community Edition) package ("About" file): * The interactive user interfaces in modified source and object code versions * of this program must display Appropriate Legal Notices, as required under * Section 5 of the GNU General Public License version 3. * * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU General Public License version 3, * these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the "Powered by * SugarCRM" logo. If the display of the logo is not reasonably feasible for * technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words * "Powered by SugarCRM". I wonder whether FSF concurs that a trademarked logo required to remain on every user interface screen at runtime qualifies as a "reasonable author attribution" -- the genuine need for attribution having always been amply met by comment lines in source code. As I've said before, this isn't attribution; it's mandatory runtime advertising. As usual in prior badgeware licences (such as SugarCRM's "SPL"), this is tied to an implied threat of trademark litigation, made somewhat more explicit by the trademark policy on http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/trademark-information.html . Authorized Use of SugarCRM Inc. Marks. A. SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logos SugarCRM Inc. has developed a family of "Conditional Use" Logos for those who wish to show their support for SugarCRM Inc. and its products and services by displaying such a logo in the user interface of a website. The "Conditional Use" Logos may be used without specific written permission from SugarCRM Inc. under the following conditions: * The use must not be detrimental, i.e., harmful or damaging, to the value of any of the SugarCRM Inc. Marks, or to SugarCRM, its brand integrity, reputation or goodwill, as determined by SugarCRM Inc. in its sole discretion; * The "Conditional Use" Logo must be a "clickable" link that leads directly to http://www.sugarcrm.com/. * If the website has password-protected areas, the "Conditional Use" Logo must be placed only in areas that are not password-protected * If used in an application released under the GPL, LGPL, MPL, SPL (Sugar Public License) or any other Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org) recognized open source license, the application must be able to connect directly to a SugarCRM server * The limited license given herein does not include the right to use any SugarCRM "Conditional Use" Logo or any other SugarCRM Inc. Logo as a trademark to promote your own products or services. For example, no SugarCRM Inc. Logo may be used on any product packaging or documentation, such as (without limitation) on CD-ROM or diskette labels or packaging, books or other publications. Any such use must be expressly authorized by SugarCRM Inc. in a signed, written agreement; * The use of any SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logo under this Section 1(A) must also comply with applicable provisions of this Trademark Policy, including (without limitation) Sections 2 and 3 The SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logos: [RM: shows a copy of the "Powered by SugarCRM" image -- the one mandated by the badgeware clause] SugarCRM Inc. reserves the right to revoke this authorization at any time in its sole discretion. For example, if SugarCRM Inc. believes that your use of any SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logo is detrimental to any of the SugarCRM Marks or is otherwise unacceptable, SugarCRM Inc. will revoke this authorization. Upon revocation of this authorization by SugarCRM Inc., you shall immediately cease using any and all SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logo. If you do not immediately cease using all SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logos upon revocation by SugarCRM, SugarCRM Inc. may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its rights and interests. Although as a general rule you must never modify the design, add or delete any words, or change any colors when using a SugarCRM Inc. "Conditional Use" Logo, you may adjust the overall size of the logo, so long as adjustments are made proportionally. Although it can be certainly argued that a trademarked image you're required to display is one that one doesn't need permission for, I think SugarCRM, Inc.'s implied legal threat and attempt to impair/dissuade all third-party commercial usage is abundantly clear. (SugarCRM, Inc. policy seems to still be dictated by their blunder of not realising that open source permits commercial-usage forks, and their consequent outrage when they learned that vTiger had taken them at their word.)