Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html; if some debian-legal gurus could take a look at the licence and tell me if i could make the ITP without any problems regarding the licence issue. Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it sugarcrm, so you'd have to rename it if producing a package. There's also a requirement that you include a logo and copyright notice on all output. This is similar in some ways to 2(c) of the GPL - it's a restriction on modification, but I'm not sure if it would be considered an excessively onerous one. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:48:29PM +0100, Fathi Boudra wrote: hi all, i would like to make an ITP for sugarcrm : http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/community/sugarcrm-community.html and i need some advices about licence issue : http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php the first lines : The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html; if some debian-legal gurus could take a look at the licence and tell me if i could make the ITP without any problems regarding the licence issue. For future reference, please include the full text of licenses being offered for evaluation. I'm pretty sure the MPL is considered DFSG-nonfree. I've attached the license (as it appeared in my browser, random question marks and all). So, this license is non-free, too. On top of that: SugarCRM Public License 1.1.3 - Exihibit B Additional Terms applicable to the SugarCRM Public License. I. Effect. These additional terms described in this SugarCRM Public License ? Additional Terms shall apply to the Covered Code under this License. II. SugarCRM and logo. This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks SugarCRM and the SugarCRM logos even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications. However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user interface screen (i) the Powered by SugarCRM logo and (ii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition, the Powered by SugarCRM logo must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the Powered By SugarCRM logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels. When users click on the Powered by SugarCRM logo it must direct them back to http://www.sugarforge.org. In addition, the copyright notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice, it must direct them back to http://www.sugarcrm.com Requiring that every single UI screen display an acknowledgement and copyright notice, requiring that it be a graphic (and a prescribed graphic, and always in English), specifying where it goes, and demanding that it *always* be displayed. This isn't even trying to be free; it's not an attribution clause, it's a forced advertising clause. It's beyond my comprehension how they can say in one breath you don't have permission to use the name SugarCRM, and in the next say you must include a SugarCRM banner on every single screen of the program. Make up your mind, guys. This also says that if the copyright notice in the latest version changes (which it probably will at least once per year, as the copyright date is updated), old versions can no longer be distributed until they're modified to include the new copyright statement. A CD with this software on it burnt in 2005 can no longer be distributed, according to this license, in 2006. And worse, such a copyright notice would be flatly incorrect; this says that I must make false copyright claims to distribute the software! -- Glenn Maynard Public License The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html SUGARCRM PUBLIC LICENSE Version 1.1.3 1. Definitions. 1.0.1. Commercial Use means distribution or otherwise making the Covered Code available to a third party. 1.1. ''Contributor'' means each entity that creates or contributes to the creation of Modifications. 1.2. ''Contributor Version'' means the combination of the Original Code, prior Modifications used by a Contributor, and the Modifications made by that particular Contributor. 1.3. ''Covered Code'' means the Original Code or Modifications or the combination of the Original Code and Modifications, in each case including portions thereof. 1.4. ''Electronic Distribution Mechanism'' means a mechanism generally accepted in the software development community for the electronic transfer of data. 1.5. ''Executable'' means Covered Code in any form other than Source Code. 1.6. ''Initial Developer'' means the individual or entity identified as the Initial Developer in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A. 1.7. ''Larger Work''
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Fathi Boudra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The SugarCRM Public License Version (SPL) consists of the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1, modified to be specific to SugarCRM, with the Additional Terms in Exhibit B. The original Mozilla Public License 1.1 can be found at: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html; if some debian-legal gurus could take a look at the licence and tell me if i could make the ITP without any problems regarding the licence issue. Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should be very likely. (We probably agree that such a relicensing is taking far too long for a DFSG- fixing grace period, even for Mozilla.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should be very likely. No, that's not even roughly true. Other packages that are MPLed include: mozilla-stumbleupon nqc tdom brickos openmcu mozilla-ldapsdk Portions of nail bonsai bugzilla pilot-syncmal t38modem malsync Possibly parts of firebird (no, not the Mozilla project) libsaxon-java zope-rdfgrabber lnpd This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument? -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument? It's not an argument--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non- free based on whether or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit disappointed that you're essentially saying even if this license is non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway, though.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Sorry, hilariously badly misaimed. Back to -legal with this. Matthew Garrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:42:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: This is based on the contents of their copyright files. Can we please stop this The only code under the MPL is Mozilla argument? It's not an argument--nobody is claiming that a license is free or non- free based on whether or not the license is being used. (I'm a bit disappointed that you're essentially saying even if this license is non-free, you can probably get away with it anyway, though.) The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive suggests (but does not confirm) that the people who actually make the decision believe it to conform to the DFSG. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:13:31PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Various people believe the MPL to be non-free, but there's code under it in the main archive at the moment so it's unlikely that an upload would be rejected for that reason. Exhibit B basically says You can't call it The code under it in the main archive is there under the claim that it's currently in the process of being dual-licensed under the GPL, so it should be very likely. (We probably agree that such a relicensing is taking far too long for a DFSG- fixing grace period, even for Mozilla.) Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main, that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled? I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License. Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link at [1] (too long to be posted here) Relicensing is not an option IMHO, at least for firebird2. I have very bad feelings about asking Borland to change their license :-( dam [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/firebrid2.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:01:27PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: The ultimate decision over whether a license is free or not rests with the FTP masters. They can be overruled by a general resolution. The presence of code under the MPL in the main section of the archive suggests (but does not confirm) that the people who actually make the decision believe it to conform to the DFSG. My impression in this case is: the MPL is non-free, the software people actually care about that's under that license is Mozilla, and it's in a state of it's being fixed, wait and see, so the people willing to expend effort to get the MPL removed are waiting. (It's easier to just wait for Mozilla to be fixed, than to spend time responding to but what about Mozilla? responses.) It seems to take a lot of squeaky-wheeling to get a non-free license treated as such these days, and that takes a lot of energy. In any event, I think this license's additions are extremely non-free in and of themselves, regardless of the MPL. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main, that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled? I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free. That does mean I agree that all software only available under the MPL has to be relicensed or removed. I don't have the energy or motivation to actually try to push for this (also, IANADD), but if Mozilla officially finishes their licensing change and makes a public announcement about it, you should be prepared for those that do to start making noise again. I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License. Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link at [1] (too long to be posted here) Do you agree that the license is non-free? (It sounds like you do, calling those clauses nasty and all.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:18:20PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: Are you proposing that any other (i.e. non-Mozilla) package in main, that is licensed under MPL or MPL-derivate has to be expelled? I'm merely agreeing with the general sentiment that the MPL is non-free. That does mean I agree that all software only available under the MPL has to be relicensed or removed. I don't have the energy or motivation to actually try to push for this (also, IANADD), but if Mozilla officially I am not a DD either. I maintain firebird2 for a couple of months. Francesco Loverigne is sponsoring the uploads. I maintain firebird2[1] packages and I'd be very badly surprised if I'd have to ask for its removal. firebird is licensed under Interbase Public license (IPL), and new files are under Initial Developer Public License. Both of them are MPL-clones with all the nasty source-of-venue and keep-source-available-12-months clauses. See them at the Copyright link at [1] (too long to be posted here) Do you agree that the license is non-free? (It sounds like you do, calling those clauses nasty and all.) I call it unfriendly. I'd be a lot happier it firebird2 was under GPL or BSD-like license. I hate reading tens of pages of legal text that I barely understand. As of being DFSG-free, I have mixed feelings. I see marginal truth in the interpretation of the source-of-venue clause as a hidden cost. The other main concern (12 months availability of source code, or 6-months if new version is released) imposes restrictions on the archive that I beleive are unfullfilable at the moment (and in forseeable future). Breaking this requirement can be avoided by mirroring the MPL-licensed parts of the archive somewhere that this requirement can be satisfied. Add to this that the company I work for needs firebird for its business and you'll see why I put my efforts in maintenance of firebird, despite the unpleasant license. Hopefully, this clarifies my position enough. dam signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: sugarcrm licence issue
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:12:31 -0500 Glenn Maynard wrote: [...] My impression in this case is: the MPL is non-free, I agree. [...] It seems to take a lot of squeaky-wheeling to get a non-free license treated as such these days, and that takes a lot of energy. Indeed. :-( In any event, I think this license's additions are extremely non-free in and of themselves, regardless of the MPL. So do I. -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpYie543XWnk.pgp Description: PGP signature
