Thursday, July 26, 2007

SugarCRM going GPLv3.... Others?

SugarCRM, probably the most popular Open Source CRM project has decided to release their upcoming SugarCRM Community Edition 5 under the brand new GPL version 3.

It was nice for them to move to a real OSI certified Open Source license, rather than sticking with their own. Wait a minute...... version 2 of GPL doesn't appear in the OSI certified list yet. Well, I guess it's going to make it there. I have yet to study the GPL v3, so I cannot comment on technicalities or personal views. Should be an interesting reading (now, don't look at me like that), after considering the controversies linked with it, Linus Torvalds not being happy about an early draft and all.

SugarCRM is a promising project, but it has a little rough memory regarding the flame wars with their vtigerCRM fork. I guess SugarCRM people will have to get used to being used (their code actually) in other projects, if they are switching to GPL (ie: they cannot claim I stole their code, if I use their codebase to create a new software). However SPL (Sugar Public Licese), their previous license also viewed as an Open Source license by some people, although not officiall endorsed by OSI. They claim that's why vtigerCRM could use the codebase in the first place.

Anyway it still means that SugarCRM Community Edition is fully Open Source. Their fork vtigerCRM is and was Open Source all along. They've put together a FAQ about their move to GPLv3. I also hope that companies who claims to be Open Source (and never feel like releasing the code) should consider being actually Open Source. If they are not going to do so, let the customers put pressure on them like SugarCRM customers did (or so I've heard).


  1. Just to add that besides OSI approved licenses, there are the FSF approved license.

    FSF is the body that wrote the GPL

  2. Thanks for the comments.

    I knew FSF was developing GPL, LGPL, GFDL, etc., I also read their discussions about the drafts of GPL v3. But I never paid much attention to

    After visiting the page again, I think I should have been paying more attention. :)

    Thanks for directing me there.