Important Appeal to The Open Source Community
  • Dear Eric:
    This is addressed to you as the prime mover behind the Open Source movement, and indeed to anyone interested in Open Source. vtiger has been created with a mission to provide very affordable IT solutions based on open source components. As our first product, we have released vtiger CRM, which is based on Apache, MySQL, PHP and SugarCRM components, each coming with a Open Source license. We worked hard to integrate all these, and test on numerous platforms. We are open sourcing the installation tools, with many more tools and add-on packages coming soon. We are proud of our contribution.

    We noticed a post in our forums, purporting to come from SugarCRM member, calling our product a lie. The thread is reproduced below, with our response to their initial post. The original thread is at http://www.vtiger.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=22

    Since SugarCRM is prominently placing the Open Source trademarked logo on their site, we are appealing to you to clarify the situation here. We believe we are complying with the letter and spirit of their Mozilla Public License based SugarCRM Public License (reproduced below), and are playing fairly in creating a distribution packaging several open source components. In fact, their license permits us to create closed source proprietary products based on their contribution, but our contribution is also open sourced under MPL. Can you please spare a moment to look into this issue?

    Regards,
    vtiger Team

    Original thread reproduced below:

    vtiger is a lie - the legal product is called SugarSales from SugarCRM Inc.

    We do not think it very cool of you to claim ownership to something you did not write one line of code for.

    Best regards,
    The SugarSales development team.

    john@sugarcrm.com


    John:
    This is surprising; may be you need a primer on what "Open Source" means. We do not claim ownership to your copyrighted and open sourced code; we have explicitly stated the origin and the copyrights of all the components of the distribution we are shipping in numerous prominent places. We package Apache, MySQL, PHP and your code, each with its own copyright. We have put in several intensive weeks of effort to get everything assembled, packaged and tested, on 4 different platforms (Win2K/XP, RedHat/Suse/Debian), which is not trivial in terms of effort. So your claim that "without a single line of code" is the lie here. Our contribution based on all this effort is going up in SourceForge (we just received permission from them to do so) this weekend, under Mozilla Public License.

    We are proud of our contribution. You will see a lot more from us real soon. Let us focus our energies on attacking the real enemy here, namely the big expensive CRM vendors we all love to hate. Your name-calling is not helpful to that mission.

    We have also clearly, publicly and gratefully acknowledged SugarCRM's contribution, and have made it clear we are not affiliated with SugarCRM in anyway, to protect your trademarks. In spite of your calling us a lie, we will continue to acknowledge this gratefully.

    vtiger was formed with a mission to provide multiple products based on open source components. CRM is one of them, and we are working on other products too. We had been working on a CRM package for over 9 months, and coincidentally, we noticed your project; after running your license through our legal (your license posted below), we felt it was easier to build on top of your contribution, which your open source license grants everyone the rights to.

    I don't understand your point about the "the legal product". We have run your SPL open source license through our legal, and we comply with every legal requirement stated in your license. Are you issuing a threat here? You may want to consult a lawyer about it - and be sure we have consulted ours too.

    We are sending this whole thread to the Open Source Development Labs (whose trademarked logo you so prominently display in your site), to clarify your license. Realize that you are using their trademarked logo, and therefore claiming that your license complies with Open Source guidelines. I will let them comment on the legality of what we are doing and what you are trying to do here.

    Your SPL development license, pulled from your site as of Tuesday Aug 27, is at http://www.sugarcrm.net/home/content/view/35/86/
    and pasted below.

    Elaborate on what portion of the license we are not complying with.

    Regards,
    vtiger Team


    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 1.1.2

    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'' means a work which combines Covered Code or portions thereof with code not governed by the terms of this License.

    1.8. ''License'' means this document.

    1.8.1. "Licensable" means having the right to grant, to the maximum extent possible, whether at the time of the initial grant or subsequently acquired, any and all of the rights conveyed herein.

    1.9. ''Modifications'' means any addition to or deletion from the substance or structure of either the Original Code or any previous Modifications. When Covered Code is released as a series of files, a Modification is:
    A. Any addition to or deletion from the contents of a file containing Original Code or previous Modifications.

    B. Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications.

    1.10. ''Original Code'' means Source Code of computer software code which is described in the Source Code notice required by Exhibit A as Original Code, and which, at the time of its release under this License is not already Covered Code governed by this License.

    1.10.1. "Patent Claims" means any patent claim(s), now owned or hereafter acquired, including without limitation, method, process, and apparatus claims, in any patent Licensable by grantor.

    1.11. ''Source Code'' means the preferred form of the Covered Code for making modifications to it, including all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, scripts used to control compilation and installation of an Executable, or source code differential comparisons against either the Original Code or another well known, available Covered Code of the Contributor's choice. The Source Code can be in a compressed or archival form, provided the appropriate decompression or de-archiving software is widely available for no charge.

    1.12. "You'' (or "Your") means an individual or a legal entity exercising rights under, and complying with all of the terms of, this License or a future version of this License issued under Section 6.1. For legal entities, "You'' includes any entity which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with You. For purposes of this definition, "control'' means (a) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (b) ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares or beneficial ownership of such entity.

    2. Source Code License.

    2.1. The Initial Developer Grant.
    The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party intellectual property claims:
    (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Initial Developer to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Original Code (or portions thereof) with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work; and

    (b) under Patents Claims infringed by the making, using or selling of Original Code, to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Code (or portions thereof).
    (c) the licenses granted in this Section 2.1(a) and (b) are effective on the date Initial Developer first distributes Original Code under the terms of this License.

    (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.1(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for code that You delete from the Original Code; 2) separate from the Original Code; or 3) for infringements caused by: i) the modification of the Original Code or ii) the combination of the Original Code with other software or devices.

    2.2. Contributor Grant.
    Subject to third party intellectual property claims, each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license

    (a) under intellectual property rights (other than patent or trademark) Licensable by Contributor, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute the Modifications created by such Contributor (or portions thereof) either on an unmodified basis, with other Modifications, as Covered Code and/or as part of a Larger Work; and

    (b) under Patent Claims infringed by the making, using, or selling of Modifications made by that Contributor either alone and/or in combination with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination), to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and/or otherwise dispose of: 1) Modifications made by that Contributor (or portions thereof); and 2) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with its Contributor Version (or portions of such combination).

    (c) the licenses granted in Sections 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) are effective on the date Contributor first makes Commercial Use of the Covered Code.

    (d) Notwithstanding Section 2.2(b) above, no patent license is granted: 1) for any code that Contributor has deleted from the Contributor Version; 2) separate from the Contributor Version; 3) for infringements caused by: i) third party modifications of Contributor Version or ii) the combination of Modifications made by that Contributor with other software (except as part of the Contributor Version) or other devices; or 4) under Patent Claims infringed by Covered Code in the absence of Modifications made by that Contributor.


    3. Distribution Obligations.

    3.1. Application of License.
    The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.

    3.2. Availability of Source Code.
    Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.

    3.3. Description of Modifications.
    You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.

    3.4. Intellectual Property Matters
    (a) Third Party Claims.
    If Contributor has knowledge that a license under a third party's intellectual property rights is required to exercise the rights granted by such Contributor under Sections 2.1 or 2.2, Contributor must include a text file with the Source Code distribution titled "LEGAL'' which describes the claim and the party making the claim in sufficient detail that a recipient will know whom to contact. If Contributor obtains such knowledge after the Modification is made available as described in Section 3.2, Contributor shall promptly modify the LEGAL file in all copies Contributor makes available thereafter and shall take other steps (such as notifying appropriate mailing lists or newsgroups) reasonably calculated to inform those who received the Covered Code that new knowledge has been obtained.

    (b) Contributor APIs.
    If Contributor's Modifications include an application programming interface and Contributor has knowledge of patent licenses which are reasonably necessary to implement that API, Contributor must also include this information in the LEGAL file.

    (c) Representations.
    Contributor represents that, except as disclosed pursuant to Section 3.4(a) above, Contributor believes that Contributor's Modifications are Contributor's original creation(s) and/or Contributor has sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.


    3.5. Required Notices.
    You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source Code. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Source Code file due to its structure, then You must include such notice in a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for such a notice. If You created one or more Modification(s) You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in Exhibit A. You must also duplicate this License in any documentation for the Source Code where You describe recipients' rights or ownership rights relating to Covered Code. You may choose to offer, and to charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Code. However, You may do so only on Your own behalf, and not on behalf of the Initial Developer or any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear than any such warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligation is offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of warranty, support, indemnity or liability terms You offer.

    3.6. Distribution of Executable Versions.
    You may distribute Covered Code in Executable form only if the requirements of Section 3.1-3.5 have been met for that Covered Code, and if You include a notice stating that the Source Code version of the Covered Code is available under the terms of this License, including a description of how and where You have fulfilled the obligations of Section 3.2. The notice must be conspicuously included in any notice in an Executable version, related documentation or collateral in which You describe recipients' rights relating to the Covered Code. You may distribute the Executable version of Covered Code or ownership rights under a license of Your choice, which may contain terms different from this License, provided that You are in compliance with the terms of this License and that the license for the Executable version does not attempt to limit or alter the recipient's rights in the Source Code version from the rights set forth in this License. If You distribute the Executable version under a different license You must make it absolutely clear that any terms which differ from this License are offered by You alone, not by the Initial Developer or any Contributor. You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of any such terms You offer.

    3.7. Larger Works.
    You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code.

    4. Inability to Comply Due to Statute or Regulation.

    If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Code due to statute, judicial order, or regulation then You must: (a) comply with the terms of this License to the maximum extent possible; and (b) describe the limitations and the code they affect. Such description must be included in the LEGAL file described in Section 3.4 and must be included with all distributions of the Source Code. Except to the extent prohibited by statute or regulation, such description must be sufficiently detailed for a recipient of ordinary skill to be able to understand it.

    5. Application of this License.

    This License applies to code to which the Initial Developer has attached the notice in Exhibit A and to related Covered Code.

    6. Versions of the License.

    6.1. New Versions.
    SugarCRM Inc. (''SugarCRM'') may publish revised and/or new versions of the License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.

    6.2. Effect of New Versions.
    Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by SugarCRM. No one other than SugarCRM has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.

    6.3. Derivative Works.
    If You create or use a modified version of this License (which you may only do in order to apply it to code which is not already Covered Code governed by this License), You must (a) rename Your license so that the phrases ''SugarCRM'', ''SPL'' or any confusingly similar phrase do not appear in your license (except to note that your license differs from this License) and (b) otherwise make it clear that Your version of the license contains terms which differ from the SugarCRM Public License. (Filling in the name of the Initial Developer, Original Code or Contributor in the notice described in Exhibit A shall not of themselves be deemed to be modifications of this License.)

    7. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY.

    COVERED CODE IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE ON AN "AS IS'' BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE COVERED CODE IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COVERED CODE IS WITH YOU. SHOULD ANY COVERED CODE PROVE DEFECTIVE IN ANY RESPECT, YOU (NOT THE INITIAL DEVELOPER OR ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR) ASSUME THE COST OF ANY NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS LICENSE. NO USE OF ANY COVERED CODE IS AUTHORIZED HEREUNDER EXCEPT UNDER THIS DISCLAIMER.

    8. TERMINATION.

    8.1. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses to the Covered Code which are properly granted shall survive any termination of this License. Provisions which, by their nature, must remain in effect beyond the termination of this License shall survive.

    8.2. If You initiate litigation by asserting a patent infringement claim (excluding declatory judgment actions) against Initial Developer or a Contributor (the Initial Developer or Contributor against whom You file such action is referred to as "Participant") alleging that:

    (a) such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any and all rights granted by such Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 of this License shall, upon 60 days notice from Participant terminate prospectively, unless if within 60 days after receipt of notice You either: (i) agree in writing to pay Participant a mutually agreeable reasonable royalty for Your past and future use of Modifications made by such Participant, or (ii) withdraw Your litigation claim with respect to the Contributor Version against such Participant. If within 60 days of notice, a reasonable royalty and payment arrangement are not mutually agreed upon in writing by the parties or the litigation claim is not withdrawn, the rights granted by Participant to You under Sections 2.1 and/or 2.2 automatically terminate at the expiration of the 60 day notice period specified above.

    (b) any software, hardware, or device, other than such Participant's Contributor Version, directly or indirectly infringes any patent, then any rights granted to You by such Participant under Sections 2.1(b) and 2.2(b) are revoked effective as of the date You first made, used, sold, distributed, or had made, Modifications made by that Participant.

    8.3. If You assert a patent infringement claim against Participant alleging that such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent where such claim is resolved (such as by license or settlement) prior to the initiation of patent infringement litigation, then the reasonable value of the licenses granted by such Participant under Sections 2.1 or 2.2 shall be taken into account in determining the amount or value of any payment or license.

    8.4. In the event of termination under Sections 8.1 or 8.2 above, all end user license agreements (excluding distributors and resellers) which have been validly granted by You or any distributor hereunder prior to termination shall survive termination.

    9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

    UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNDER NO LEGAL THEORY, WHETHER TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE, SHALL YOU, THE INITIAL DEVELOPER, ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR ANY DISTRIBUTOR OF COVERED CODE, OR ANY SUPPLIER OF ANY OF SUCH PARTIES, BE LIABLE TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL NOT APPLY TO LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY RESULTING FROM SUCH PARTY'S NEGLIGENCE TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITS SUCH LIMITATION. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THIS EXCLUSION AND LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

    10. U.S. GOVERNMENT END USERS.

    The Covered Code is a ''commercial item,'' as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of ''commercial computer software'' and ''commercial computer software documentation,'' as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June 1995), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Code with only those rights set forth herein.

    11. MISCELLANEOUS.

    This License represents the complete agreement concerning subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable. This License shall be governed by California law provisions (except to the extent applicable law, if any, provides otherwise), excluding its conflict-of-law provisions. With respect to disputes in which at least one party is a citizen of, or an entity chartered or registered to do business in the United States of America, any litigation relating to this License shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts of the Northern District of California, with venue lying in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party responsible for costs, including without limitation, court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The application of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded. Any law or regulation which provides that the language of a contract shall be construed against the drafter shall not apply to this License.

    12. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS.

    As between Initial Developer and the Contributors, each party is responsible for claims and damages arising, directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License and You agree to work with Initial Developer and Contributors to distribute such responsibility on an equitable basis. Nothing herein is intended or shall be deemed to constitute any admission of liability.

    13. MULTIPLE-LICENSED CODE.

    Initial Developer may designate portions of the Covered Code as “Multiple-Licensed”. “Multiple-Licensed” means that the Initial Developer permits you to utilize portions of the Covered Code under Your choice of the SPL or the alternative licenses, if any, specified by the Initial Developer in the file described in Exhibit A.

    SugarCRM Public License 1.1.2 - Exhibit A

    The contents of this file are subject to the SugarCRM Public License Version 1.1.2
    ("License"); You may not use this file except in compliance with the
    License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.sugarcrm.com/SPL
    Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis,
    WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
    the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License.

    The Original Code is: SugarCRM Open Source

    The Initial Developer of the Original Code is SugarCRM, Inc.
    Portions created by SugarCRM are Copyright (C) 2004 SugarCRM, Inc.;
    All Rights Reserved.
    Contributor(s): ______________________________________.

    [NOTE: The text of this Exhibit A may differ slightly from the text of the notices in the Source Code files of the Original Code. You should use the text of this Exhibit A rather than the text found in the Original Code Source Code for Your Modifications.]

    SugarCRM Public License 1.1.2 - 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.
  • 50 Comments sorted by
  • to the v-tiger team,
    it is the spirit of open source that we have an issue with v-tiger not the legality of open source. taking our hard work (code) and replacing our sugarcrm logos with v-tiger logos and tweaking a single css file does not in our view advance the sugarcrm project. your website says v-tiger is built on top of sugar.sales but we do not see anything in your distribution but pure sugar sales application code.

    that said, we do value the work of contributors such as yourselves. we would much prefer our collaboration to be a real collaboration not just your taking our code and putting your logo on top of it.

    we will license you the right to use a “powered by sugarcrm“ logo which will allow you to more cleanly uphold the sprit of open source collaboration and will additionally acknowledge our hard work as the developers of the core sugarcrm code base.

    we are more then open to talk with you about how we can work together more constructively.

    regards,
    john roberts
    john@sugarcrm.com
  • dear john:
    thanks for your message. we appreciate the spirit of cooperation. we do have the intent to add substantial value here - we have just uploaded the first piece of work, packaging everything needed to run the system well. a lot more is coming ... we are happy to note that everything is working well, and you guys have done an awesome job!

    moving forward, we will be focused primarily on creating vertical niche applications, especially concentrating on the much-neglected small business market, which is our forte. we believe the incumbent solutions are way too expensive, and we can provide some real value here.

    now that we got this clarified, we will work hard to give the big boys a real scare here :-)

    regards,
    vtiger team
  • v-tiger team,
    we just downloaded your posting of our sugarcrm code and reviewed the source tree in an attempt to locate your 'hard work'.

    this is what we have found:
    1. you modified 18 sugar sales core files
    2. no additional business logic was added
    3. no additional databases are supported
    4. no additional modules were built
    5. no screens were customized
    6. no fields were added to the application
    7. we can find nothing to support your claim that you built v-tiger 'on-top' of sugarcrm.
    8. v-tiger did strip out our sugarcrm logo
    9. v-tiger did remove our sugarcrm copyright notice
    10. v-tiger did alter ui style sheets
    11. v-tiger added a new theme
    12. and substituted your v-tiger name for sugarcrm.

    also, in the earlier code you posted, v-tiger replaced our sugarcrm copyright notice in the header section of our install source files. this is a direct violation of our mpl based open source license.

    lastly, over the past four months that sugarcrm has been publicly available, we have received hundreds of code contributions from around the world. including some very hard work by real crm developers. never have we seen someone try and exploit the work of others like you are trying to do at v-tiger.

    again, based on this analysis of your 'hard work', with think it is laughable that you simply rebranded sugarcrm inc's core product sugar sales with your v-tiger branding. your packaging and rebranding of sugarcrm is a disgrace to the spirit of the open source movement.

    the sugarcrm development team.
    www.sugarcrm.com

    also please post a mailing address, email and phone number on your website so you can be contacted.
  • john:
    now i understand it. at first it was "legal" threats and now it is the "spirit" of open source. we are just getting started - as i said, we just posted the very first readily installable, fully integrated build and the sources we touched. you are probably the second person to have downloaded this thing. we are barely into testing our site (as the numerous test messages would attest).

    you have no legal, moral or ethical leg to stand on to lecture us. we are perfectly compliant in letter and spirit of the open source license, and this is just our very first build here that you are mocking. we don't need your certfication on our work; if you find value in our work feel free to use it. if you think it is trivial, i say just don't use it. to go around mocking other people's effort is not the open source spirit - don't like it, then don't use it, that is the right spirit.

    ultimately, it will be the users and customers who decide whether there is value or not in what we bring to the table and that is the only test that counts, not your name-calling driven by your frustration that someone else may compete in what you perceive to be your exclusive turf.

    as for your other claims: the fact that you find fault in us touching "only" 18 files is absurd on the face. how many contributors have given you patches on more than 18 files in one shot? and it is not just your code that is there in our distribution. what about apache, php & mysql? in sheer size, they vastly exceed your code. integration and testing work of all these pieces on various platforms isn't trivial, but you would only know that if you have personally written or tested any code in life rather than order around other people to do it.

    we do and will continue to comply with the letter and spirit of the license. we will scrutinize your claim about mpl violation very carefully, and if there is even the slightest issue, we will fix it. but all your points sound just frustrated nit-picking - we have given credit in every form and shape it is due and very liberally, and anyone who downloads the software can see it for themselves.

    your license specifically forbids people from using your trademarks or name or logo on stuff not coming from you, and we dutifully compiled. we have clearly also said we are not affiliated with you in any way, just so that the copyrights we include don't give anyone the incorrect impression. consult your legal counsel, and be assured that we do consult ours.

    it is you who needs training in the spirit of open source, not us. we have in our past released code under open source, and unlike you, we don't go around chasing people threatening "legal" stuff like you so crassly did just a couple of posts ago. once you realized your bluff was called, you try this tack. we will not swerve from our mission, and we will just ignore any future posts on this vein from you.

    we call on you to stop these name calling tactics, and get back to just competing and cooperating in the true open source spirit. the numerous volunteers who contributed to your code deserve better than your name calling tactics designed to prevent legitimate distributions that you dislike because it may compete with you. we have done the honorable thing here, and the installers we have done are tough work. even after weeks' of tweaking, they still don't work to our satisfaction so there is more work ahead.

    as for our contact information, we will post it in due course, when the software is fully cooked to our satisfaction.

    regards,
    vtiger team
  • john,
    can you please clarify what is wrong in someone taking a open sourced product, package it nicely, and offer much superior support and service compared to the original authors.

    for example, what stops me from taking a mysql, a jboss etc. and packing it better than what is being done currently and offer terrific support and service to paying customers.

    end of the day, you cannot just rest on your laurels. you need to be preapred to comepete. i suggest you now plan on competing vigorously against vtiger.

    if all software is going to be open sourced then the only differentiation will be support and services. you better be prepared for this new world order.

    sanjay
    an observer.
  • v-tiger team,
    please post your name, address and phone number where you can be reached on your website. if you are such an upfront and honest group of folks this should not be an issue for you. if you do not post it, expect that we will find out exactly who you are. you can expect that we will be relentless in defending the integrity of sugarcrm inc and our core product sugar sales.

    by replacing sugarcrm copyrights and logos with v-tiger copyrights and logos you are essentially claiming that you authored v-tiger. a much more upfront and honest strategy on your part would be to preserve the identity and branding of the core code that represents your v-tigar product – sugarcrm inc and sugar sales. as i have said previously we do not have an issue with you redistributing sugar sales, we do take issue with your claiming or implying that you wrote something that you did not while not making it clear who exactly wrote the code.
    john
  • john:

    we will provide all our details next week. we are not intimidated. we are honorable people, and we will defend our honor vigorously, and in every legal forum.

    by replacing sugarcrm copyrights and logos with v-tiger copyrights and logos you are essentially claiming that you authored v-tiger.


    your own license explicitly forbids use of your trademarks and logos. here is the quote from your spl 1.1.2, found from your website.

    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.


    with that provision, if we ship vtiger sugarcrm or vtiger sugar.sales you will obviously find fault. so what exactly are we supposed to do here?

    contrary to hiding the origins of your code, we have exposed and given you credit in every possible way, more credit than every other open source component packaged. in fact, the second day after we put out vtiger crm, you were able to find out the origin of the code easily. it is there in this very website prominently, for all the world to see. we will point out all of these in court, if that is what you want. don't ever believe that your intimidatory tactics will succeed.

    john, you are embarking on a course that brings dishonor to your team's hard work and to your company. we have given credit liberally and fairly. it is one thing to be wary of commercial competition, but it is entirely another to use open source as an intimidation scheme to silence competition.

    we are ccing this to eric raymond, esr@thyrsus.com, so he can advice all of us on the fairness of what we are doing and what you are doing.

    vtiger team
  • john:
    here is our address:

    vtiger.com
    attention: v. sekar
    9 porur street
    east tambaram
    chennai india
    600 059

    phone: +91-44-2239 - 3286

    vtiger.com is in the process of registration as a private limited company under indian law. we will set up subsidiaries in due course in us and other countries.

    we will defend ourselves vigorously in every form and medium. we will not let your intimidation stand. be very sure of that.

    vtiger team
  • i first heard about surgarcrm, i ran to download it and install. this was not an easy task, actually i have to admit the entire project became a bother instead of a boom. then i read about vtiger...downloaded their package which i understand the root of came from sugar...however the little work they did do....it was able to install. a nice addition to sugarcrm.
  • bcc, thanks for the kind words. creating an easy to install package takes a lot of work! there are so many seemingly small issues that trip you up (what if a user already has mysql or apache installed, what about differences among windows 2000 vs xp vs red hat vs debian vs ...). we are working hard to make it a totally seamless process for as many people as possible.

    a lot of it is just from personal experience too. i personally hate to download software and then scratch my head on how to make it work.

    with current release, we are focusing on adding as much value as possible. please keep your feedback and suggestions coming!

    mani
  • sugarcrm is really easy to install :

    with an apache/php/mysql distribution like easyphp (easyphp.org) you get a full web server running in less than 3 minutes

    then you just have to run the sugarcrm install.php script

    estimated time : 10 minutes
  • john, if your license allows them to rebrand sugarcrm then you cannot say that vtigercrm is a lie. many products have open source and commercial version as your products. if you don't want other ppl to use your code, you should not release any open source software and leave the works to other ppl who is willing to do.

    maybe later vtigercrm will become commercial also, but someone leaves someone comes. also there are no big deal how much time and effort they have put on improving the product, code, 1 line of code may fix a big problem.

    regards,
    scorpian
  • i agree with scorpian... i've read over this for the last 20+ minutes and i don't understand how you can say what they did was wrong???

    a license is what you make of it...

    think about it: linux is a perfect example...
  • let me add my 5cents worth. personally i do not know anything about the open source side of things, so i wont comment on that.

    what i can say however is that i think the work done by vtiger no matter how big or small is tremendous. i am new to the whole php apache side of things, and therefore would like to say that an installer is great.. when you get presented with a whole bunch of files to try and configure, yourself you get put off if you do not know much about that side of it, but when someone presents you with an "installer" to make it work, then that is great everyhting is configured autoamtically, its what us windows people are used to.


    also when i downloaded the vtiger crm, i saw something about it being the same as sugarcrm and i went to the sugarcrm website straight away to see your version and after downloading it, i realised it is was not as easy to install as vtiger as you had no installer.

    i think that as long as vtoger is not claiming the code to be theirs "which i see no mention of" then i really dont see a problem with the installer.

    but perhaps what vtiger should make clear is that they only did the installer and package. so it shoudl read "sugarcrm packaged and configured by vtiger"... ;-)

    thats all i have folks..
  • surgarcrm is a great product! a true contribution and thankfully, i will be using their version in my business. having said that...

    when you license open source you agree that anyone can "slap a logo" on it and redistribute with proper credit for the source code. vtiger has done so by any measure, as well as made improvements.

    it is my hope that vtiger will earn enough money either through selling copies or the service/support to pay for continious improvements to move ever forward. some times we need to be aware that money is the only way that these improvements can occur (especially when you have to feed your family) and if this method allows them to earn so that we see future results, we should incourage them to do so and be thankfull they chose your product over the thousands they could have chosen.

    many companies sell the exact same product, the difference is in the sales and support of the product that will differenciate your company.
  • an interestng article about vtiger and sugarcrm can be found at http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?action=view&id=392&topic=linux.
  • thanks for the link to the article. there are somethings we would like to clarify.

    to come to the main thrust of the article, we would like to state clearly that, from the beginning, vtiger's intent has been to create a complete, professionally packaged, integrated and tested "distribution" that will work out-of-the-box. we stated that the open source components in the distribution are world-class but it is a pain to integrate them, especially for a small and medium business part-time it person.

    the surprise to us was it was attacked immediately (one day after we posted our packaged distribution). we responded quickly and vigorously, because we believed and continue to believe that what we did is perfectly ethical and legal, and it was unfair to attack us this way.

    but that is past history now, and hopefully our contributions would convince the community at large that we do mean what we say, and we are intent on making a substantial contribution to open source enterprise applications (well beyond crm). we repeat what we have said again and again: regardless of what transpires on this issue, we are grateful to sugarcrm for their open source contribution, which we freely acknowledge. we have not taken their latest releases, because the license has changed, as the author states. but that doesn't subtract from their initial contribution.

    finally one clarification on a crucial point:

    vtiger did not just hijack the project but are actively enhancing the application with added functionality such as an outlook plug-in, which is only available as a trial version for the free sugarcrm version. interestingly vtiger says that the outlook plug-in is their contribution which, if true, might still create a licence conflict.


    there is no license conflict of any kind with respect to the outlook plug-in. the article seems to assume that vtiger and sugarcrm as claiming ownership for the same outlook plug-in. they are independently written code bases. vtiger has not even seen the sugarcrm outlook plug-in, and we don't claim that sugarcrm took the vtiger open source plug-in either. these are two independently written pieces of code, one closed source and the other open source. so there is no license conflict here.

    mani
  • my feeling with sugarcrm is that the just use the "open source"
    logo as a marketing tool. in my case i visited their site just
    because i was looking for an open source solution. i didn't
    implement it because at that time the outlook plugin was not free
    (now it is! thanks vtiger ;-)) and some important features were
    only available in their commercial version (vtiger plans to offer
    many of them :-d)

    then i found vtiger, an open source software, easy to install,
    a world class support, what else do you want?!?!?

    why i choose vtiger instead of sugarcrm? because, from my point
    of view, they represent the "spirit" of open source and, for me as
    user, they put real additional value on top of other pieces of
    software.

    i also found dissapointing the way sugarcrm reacts in this case.

    great job guys!
  • it does seem many were turned off by sugarcrm after the initial release by the introduction of a "pro" version that people were actually having to pay for (well, i guess i am not sure how many are actually paying). it is obvious that vtiger is now getting attention because of the slightly different direction they are taking. vtiger does claim they are backed by some funding and eventually they will need to do something more to reap the rewards of the investment. it is not clear as to what that "something" is outside of slight mention of "services and support". until that time, enjoy and contribute back to vtiger in order to keep the momentum and fine product moving forward.
  • it does seem many were turned off by sugarcrm after the initial release by the introduction of a "pro" version that people were actually having to pay for (well, i guess i am not sure how many are actually paying). it is obvious that vtiger is now getting attention because of the slightly different direction they are taking. vtiger does claim they are backed by some funding and eventually they will need to do something more to reap the rewards of the investment. it is not clear as to what that "something" is outside of slight mention of "services and support". until that time, enjoy and contribute back to vtiger in order to keep the momentum and fine product moving forward.
  • the vtiger business model is to keep the software 100% open source, and make money by offering support and services. we don't expect instant success, and we are in this for the long haul. to survive, we keep our costs low, and spend our money slowly and wisely.

    we will announce the paid support model in due course; we want the product to reach a certain state of maturity before we do this, because we don't want support or services customers to have to pay for product immaturities. but rest assured that the code itself will remain 100% open source.

    mani
  • i've been reading the posts and firstly must say that these kind of debates are extremely important to the growth and understanding of open source software as a business entity as a whole.

    i have a couple of comments to make.
    firstly, we use the sugarcrm open-source license for our business purposes. we did stumble on vtiger before deciding to install sugar however after some evaluation we decided that sugar better suited our requirements. subsequently we have assisted a couple of our clients in implementing sugarcrm professional for their businesses most of which insisted on purchasing the porfessional license and were quite happy to pay for it.

    the comment that i want to make is to sugarcrm
    you have released version 1.5 under a modified mozilla license. this gives you all the benefits that come with having the open source community available and ready to help modify and greatlly improve your software at almost no cost which allows you to compete as you are with the "big boys". i have no problem with your business model and charging a commercial fee for added functionality. what i do have a problem with is that you expect to recieve all the benefits that go with open source however when another entitty decides to "take" your open source product, clearly modify it, rebrand it and release it to the public all legally and "in the spirit of open-source" you start this whole name calling debate.

    however, to vtiger.
    i find it funny how your road map and "future prodcuts" are the same future products that sugar is currently developing. marketing automation and customer support & services sounds very similar to sugar support and sugar marketing. coincidence? for some reason i think not. if that isn't a rape of ip then i dont know what is.

    so to sugar - you need to learn to deal with the fact that you cant have all the benefits of the open source community without a certain cost and to vtiger - i think you should give sugar a bit more credit that they deserve seeing that your entire crm product is practiically built on sugarsales (and it appears all your future products will be as well)
    "vtiger crm is built over proven, fast, and reliable lamp/wamp (linux/windows, apache, mysql, and php) technologies and open source projects, such as sugarcrm " simply doesnt do it justice!

    - mellon

    :idea:
  • dear mellon:
    thank you for your thoughtful post. we would like to clarify one thing:

    however, to vtiger.
    i find it funny how your road map and "future prodcuts" are the same future products that sugar is currently developing. marketing automation and customer support & services sounds very similar to sugar support and sugar marketing. coincidence? for some reason i think not. if that isn't a rape of ip then i dont know what is.


    if you take a look at vtiger crm evolution over 1, 2, 3 and now 3.2, you will find increasingly original contribution from vtiger. as of vtiger crm 1, our contribution was to provide a packaged and tested full distribution, ready to install and run. as of vtiger 3.2, there is substantial new code, all of it available under a reusable open source license (mpl and gpl dual licensed for convenience for use in any project).

    in fact, after the initial release, vtiger has not used sugarcrm code, because their later license spl 1.1.3 no longer fully complies with open source guidelines, and we would like only 100% open source compliant code in the vtiger distribution. you may not have been aware of this when you wrote the above about "rape of ip".

    we have acknowledged their contribution in myriad ways. in fact, if you read spl 1.1.2 (which is basically mpl) it does not require the level of credit we have given. normally when you use a open source module like apache in your code, the license is tucked away. if you see vtiger, the credit is everywhere in every page, and no one can miss it.

    as for product roadmap, actually the work done in the last few months is quite different from their roadmap. just to cite a few examples, extensive customizability in terms of tabs, custom fields, a full fledged security module for access controlling different fields to different users, ... these have been vtiger's focus.

    you will agree that any crm software has to have certain core modules, so to an extent, any product, whether from siebel or salesforce or sugarcrm or vtiger, will have to have those features.

    once again, thank you for your criticism. we accept it in good spirit. hold us to our promise, and keep us honest!

    mani
  • wow! what a saga open source has become, i have to agree that if developers put their code in the realms of open source they do have to compete with other teams who look to improve code and the interfaces utilised.

    vtiger, i agree your version is easier to install, not everyone is an it expert and your product makes life easy for the novice. also it is to be applauded that you have not allowed an american company to bully you into removing your contributions, which many of us are enjoying. i do hope your organisation will stay 100% open source, it would be ironic if you sold out to sugarcrm.

    sugarcrm, seriously, you are not in a playground, try and act like adults. your product is to be commended and the momentun you have started to be congratulated. come to terms that you cannot abuse the open source community, have them put ideas and create code which you sideline for your professional version.

    take the challenge and make your versions fully 100% open source and provide chargeable support and value added services etc. if vtiger can do it, then so should you. the products will have seperate features in time driven by each companies user base.

    sugarcrm, do this to prove you are brave enough not only to compete but that you have as a company the better ideas and vision, vtiger are doing so.

    alternativley, continue your pettiness and have more people reject sugarcrm in preferance to vtiger's flavour. i certainly have and know many users/companies that will now only use vtiger because they are angered by sugarcrm's agressive stance (who knows how sugarcrm will treat their clients if they behave like this) and because vtiger's team have better long term vision and superior "customer support", someone may want explain what that is to sugarcrm!
  • i have read this thread and the single theme on which sugarcrm seems to have an issue is the concept of advancing the product. for what it's worth, i downloaded sugarcrm 2.0, and after a lot of messing around, i finally got it to work. i found the documentation was deficient for linux (i would even describe it as non-existent), and the lack of security intolerable.

    additionally, i found v-tiger's spirit to be in the true spirit of open source by developing and also distributing via open source the outlook connector.

    congratulations to the v-tiger team on their work and congratulations on sugarcrm on starting a great project and allowing the people like the v-tiger team to take it to a new level.
  • john

    your careless outburst are appalling!! you have started another disgraceful bob and you look certain to sco an own goal!! one of the greatest opportunities in open source is the ability to *fork*!! why? because the world is not homogeneous!!! a crm in zimbabwe might need a different customisation from a crm in india. those who have headed the open source call should be fully aware of this. in fact, you should be greatful to those who *fork*.

    you are probably a hyena :twisted: in sheep skin!! i refer to those who falsely proclaim to be open source yet they are only scavenging for innocent and unsuspecting customers to pounce on when you raise the tollgates. you should read philip copeman's bell tolls for the software tollgates! http://www.turbocash.co.za/bellstoll.html.

    i would like to take this opportunity to encourage all open source developers to fork any project that has a dual licensing (open source and proprietary) to protect innocent customers from being hijacked in a tollgate storm.

    ....and guess what, we are going to fork sugarcrm to port it to a zimbabwean flavour!!! i can't wait!!! :wink:

    regards,

    moses marimo

    [/url]
  • "bwoo" said:
    i have read this thread and the single theme on which sugarcrm seems to have an issue is the concept of advancing the product. for what it's worth, i downloaded sugarcrm 2.0, and after a lot of messing around, i finally got it to work. i found the documentation was deficient for linux (i would even describe it as non-existent), and the lack of security intolerable.

    additionally, i found v-tiger's spirit to be in the true spirit of open source by developing and also distributing via open source the outlook connector.

    congratulations to the v-tiger team on their work and congratulations on sugarcrm on starting a great project and allowing the people like the v-tiger team to take it to a new level.


    strongly agreed! i too downloaded sugarcrm, and thought that i had found something that would be free to my company to use. after configuring it on my own and having to copy and paste various suggestions/posts from their own message board, i compiled a rough and ugly draft of a users manual. poor support, no documentation that really addresses how to use the product, and worst of all; the pricing system that is not openly addressed on the site until after you do some searching. bah! not sweet as sugar in my book!

    good work vtiger! keep it comin!
  • fwiw, i saw this post and went ahead and installed sugarcrm (thinking i'd get certain features, such a custom fields in opportunities). having realized my error, i now see how vtiger is different.

    take it from somebody who was looking for a flexible solution. vtiger appears to be what the doctor ordered.
  • mike:
    thanks for your kind words. we really appreciate it. please help us improve the software. post your suggestions, and most importantly bug reports and critical feedback on where it fails to meet your expectation.

    regards,
    mani
  • hello vtiger

    i have a question to the vtiger crm product team.i appreciate the vtiger team in configuring and creating a great installation package for phpbb and sugarcrm.i have always hated compiling files and love an easy installation and i expect further exciting projects from the vtiger team.

    but my question is will they give back the installation and other changes to the sugar crm tree ,maintain it as their own vtiger public license.

    i believe that vtiger should attract developers in a niche domain of open source projects like creating easy installation and packaging and leave the core additions to sugarcrm and phpbb tree as they are a larger established community,vtiger can contribute the additions to sugarcrm.phpbb.if someone likes to add functionalities to phpbb,sugarcrm.sales they should address it in sugarcrm,phpbbif not i think it will fork the project .

    my only concern is to avoid forking of project.how does vtiger address this issue?

    i am a good citizen of open source and a well wisher of vtiger,sugarcrm,phpbb and other open source projects..

    thanks

    prakash
  • i think it's time to stop here. we've seen that vtiger is based on one of the first releases of sugarcrm (completely with in an installationpackage for using it 'out of the box'). but everyone who compares both products now (and the teams behind it!) can see the differences. and i'm sure with the next release they will be completely different.

    vtiger has a much better outlook integration, better installation package and what's counts the much better support. have you ever tried to get in contact with a sugarcrm team member?

    on the first sight it looks like they are supporting more languages (not only english, dutch and german). i don't now but if everey language module is as poor translated as the german one than it's not an a sign of quality (even in the commercial product).

    and please, why should i bring in my ideas, my translations, testing results when they will use it in a commercial version?

    so please support the vtiger team with bug-fixing, with good suggestiongs for improving their product and not at least with money!
  • there are a few questions left unanswered here.

    1. the sugar guy said the vtiger guys had removed all copyright notices from the code itself. is that true? (sorry, haven't downloaded vtiger to see) if it is, it is a license violation.

    2. the vtiger guys say they have released it under the mpl, but they received the code under the spl. now, i haven't read the spl, but the mpl it is based on expressly forbids you to change licenses like that. it *does* give you a license to rebrand and release as proprietary software (i.e. not open source), but it doesn't let you change the license. if that's the case, the vtiger guys shouldn't be able to change from spl to mpl.

    3. the vtiger guys say they have released vtigercrm under a dual license model, mpl and gpl. this license shift is not possible with the mpl, period. not unless you get all contributors to agree to it. there will never be a point where vtiger can be considered 'not a derivative work" of sugarcrm, because it was released based on sugarcrm. right?

    4. the mpl requires you to send modifications back to the original developers. it's not like gpl where you just have to give up the source code. many regular free software programmers refuse to contribute to mozilla precisely because the mpl license works like it does. (lest we forget, the first license to come from rms himself was similar to the mpl in that regard, and he switched later to dream up the gpl when his original emacs license didn't work) but just posting the sourcecode for download somewhere isn't the same as sending the modifications back to the original developers.

    i think the problem here isn't who's "true to open source" or whatever, this looks like a pissing match more than anything else. both sides have expressed real concerns (albeit in a fashion that's not conducive to constructive conversation) and neither side have responded to those concerns. negotiation and compromise are all about responding to concerns on both sides of the fence, and reaching something in the middle.
  • when i first saw sugarcrm last year (june 2004) i first thought it's a nice app and i would like to use it.
    then i realized the lack of user security and access control and i thought that this app is not mature yet. when the sugar team said that they would have access control in the next major release i thought that this thing is growing and is worth a try. so i began translating it to greek when the next release indeed had access control security but only on the professional version. what a crap! i gave up on the translation and moved on evaluating other softwares. i didn't care much about vtiger as i thought it was just a sugar clone with an easy installer, i didn't need it.
    in the meanwhile i translated xrms to greek, so now it's fully compatible with the greek language, but i did miss some features, like product support, real customer helpdesk, a nice interface etc.
    3 days ago i came by vtiger once more. what a marvelous piece of software it has become. full featured and still os. so i am now beginning the greek translation of vtiger, and will have it finished hopefully within a short timeframe.
    a suggestion: if it is possible, please use the gettext as xrms is using for internationalization. this way, strings that appear in different pages can be translated once, an all the strings used in the app, are gathered in one file. that makes it much easier to translate and upgrade the translation when a new version comes.
  • dear guest:
    there are a few questions left unanswered here.


    1. the sugar guy said the vtiger guys had removed all copyright notices from the code itself. is that true? (sorry, haven't downloaded vtiger to see) if it is, it is a license violation.


    there are copyright notices all over the place, including the home page and about us page. it was missed out in 1-2 source code files, which was fixed as soon as pointed out, as required by spl. so this was merely a smokescreen issue - from day one, the attitude displayed was hostility and "gotcha", not constructive. we have extended the olive branch and that was spurned. we stand by our work and we will probably soon remove all sugarcrm derived code from vtiger, just to put this whole thing to rest.


    2. the vtiger guys say they have released it under the mpl, but they received the code under the spl. now, i haven't read the spl, but the mpl it is based on expressly forbids you to change licenses like that. it *does* give you a license to rebrand and release as proprietary software (i.e. not open source), but it doesn't let you change the license. if that's the case, the vtiger guys shouldn't be able to change from spl to mpl.


    read spl 1.1.2. read mpl. see if spl verbatim can be used to cover code extensions released by vtiger. you will see the absurdity of saying "sugarcrm licenses you .." kind of language - it would be considered false advertising. substituting that with neutral language is exactly mpl. so before you pass judgements so easily, please check the license, and see if what we have done is valid. by the way, mpl and gpl apply *only* to our extensions. the original code we took remains under spl 1.1.2.


    3. the vtiger guys say they have released vtigercrm under a dual license model, mpl and gpl. this license shift is not possible with the mpl, period. not unless you get all contributors to agree to it. there will never be a point where vtiger can be considered 'not a derivative work" of sugarcrm, because it was released based on sugarcrm. right?


    see above answer.


    4. the mpl requires you to send modifications back to the original developers. it's not like gpl where you just have to give up the source code. many regular free software programmers refuse to contribute to mozilla precisely because the mpl license works like it does. (lest we forget, the first license to come from rms himself was similar to the mpl in that regard, and he switched later to dream up the gpl when his original emacs license didn't work) but just posting the sourcecode for download somewhere isn't the same as sending the modifications back to the original developers.

    our reading of it is that it requires us to publish modifications publicly and openly and keep it available. sourceforge qualifies - it is accepted as the dominant open source repository. all vtiger modifications and extensions are there in sourceforge cvs.

    i think the problem here isn't who's "true to open source" or whatever, this looks like a pissing match more than anything else. both sides have expressed real concerns (albeit in a fashion that's not conducive to constructive conversation) and neither side have responded to those concerns. negotiation and compromise are all about responding to concerns on both sides of the fence, and reaching something in the middle.

    we have never attacked anyone. we were attacked. we extended the olive branch; it was spurned. perhaps you are trying to be very even handed here, but please consider the facts here and then pass your judgement. anyway, very soon, this discussion would be moot. vtiger crm has evolved so much that within another release we will eliminate all traces of spl 1.1.2 derived code. the direction we are going is quite different, and our vision is to provide a full open source, integrated solution for small and medium enterprise.

    thanks for your post.

    regards,
    mani
  • user point of view on vtiger vs sugar :

    i've tried both software one month ago. none of them fit my need and i've been looking around since this firt try.

    but then one month later i went back to both of them.
    - crm move to $ shema. the open source free version is going to stack on this development.
    - vtiger have a beta version with a lot of new feature.
    - when looking at the implementation from less than 1 years, the vtiger and their open source community have done in few month what's sugar have done in a lot more time.

    conclusion from an user point of view:
    - this team is a challenger that are really working hard and that implement fuction at light speed!

    so i'm will wait a little bit more the stable 4.2 version and in between still look around to find out such a dinamyx projet.
    thanks for your brillant works guy.
  • i am not qestioning the legal side of this, i guess it is better left to legal professionals, but recently discovering this thread i would like to comment on a vtiger team statement.

    << vtiger was formed with a mission to provide multiple products based on open source components. crm is one of them, and we are working on other products too. >>

    i understand that vtiger was formed in 2003, and so far the products are the branded sugarcrm and related plugins - what are the multiple products you are referring to? .

    << we had been working on a crm package for over 9 months, and coincidentally, we noticed your project; after running your license through our legal (your license posted below), we felt it was easier to build on top of your contribution, which your open source license grants everyone the rights to.>>

    how is it possible to "coincidentally" notice sugarcrm after 9 months (!) of work on an open source crm project?

    and i believe there is a differnce in "building on top" or repackaging.
  • 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.


    i am not a lawyer, so i may be wrong.

    vtiger, your interpretation of the license is wrong. license never said to you to remove the copyrights form the source code files.

    this part of the licence is only to avoid your(vtiger) mistakes to not to affect sugarcrm image.

    just think some one modifies vtiger to insert a trojan and redistributes ...
  • vtiger, your interpretation of the license is wrong. license never said to you to remove the copyrights form the source code files.


    guest:
    thanks for your feedback. the issue was the use of logo in the gui, not the copyrights from the source code. in fact, the copyrights were left intact in the gui of the software, and inadvertantly removed from a couple of source files. that was a honest mistake on our part, which we corrected promptly (within 1 day). an automated cvs check-in script was the culprit. the intent was never to remove the copyright message in source code (as evidenced by the fact that it was never removed from the ui itself, which is far more prominent).

    anyway, this is moot now, because vtiger crm has evolved, and by next major release will not have any sugarcrm derived code at all. we have put this whole controversy aside, and have just worked hard on writing code, and offering a good product. you can verify for yourself just how much vitger offers today.

    regards,
    mani
  • after reading this quite long thread.

    after reading both mpl and spl licences.

    after looking globally at vtiger source files.

    my conclusion is simple : there's clearly no licensing violation, so the
    debate should now be turned off.

    imho, forking was a need and you did it. good thing.

    the morality : if you don't want the risk of your code beeing forked, open it
    completly. keeping only a glitch of code closed is simply evil. writing
    competing open code to closed code is the best thing that can happen,
    even if functionnalities are exactly the same.

    otherwise, keep it closed and go out the os market.

    full dot. :!:
  • after a long time reading.. my 11 cents..

    1) vtiger took advantage of missing features, such as a clean/easy install procedure at the first sugar versions and created a fork. this seems to be legitimate, although i don't want want to start the license discussion all over. it seems like to main problematic point was that sugar wanted the logo on the screen and vtiger "thought" they couldn't keep the logo.
    2) it looks like many people are saying "open source" while what they mean is "free software". ideally, nobody wants to pay anything. but it looks like some people feel offended just because sugarcrm has created the pro (and now enterprise) version.
    3) someone has also mentioned that sugar is for people who wants to make money, downloading and selling modules or services. what's the problem with this? i do this, but also improve the product, just like vtiger does.
    4) i haven't done a detailed product comparison, but, as a developer for 23 years, i know that both products will have advantages and disadvantages, for ever! so, what is best now, whatever it is, might not be tomorrow. so, i recommend placing your bets long-term.
    5) sugarcrm really censors vtiger at their forums. this is a shame. i know they disagree with the fork, but maybe they should explicitly make a public statement as a "sticky" post with their point of view.
    6) sugarcrm has more marketing punch. there are no messages in their forums saying "people, go to every forum you see and post a msg saying this product is wonderful, put a link, let's grow the community..". this is not professional.
    7) sugarcrm people are not really as responsive as the guys here. vtiger really shows they listen more, they answer more. so, vtiger is giving better user support. but, apparently, both miss strong developer programs.
    8) sugarcrm does not simply unilaterally get our contributions and merge into their proprietary products. as a developer, i like to have control of what i do. and i have, with the license terms i want.
    9) most people go with the all-you-can-eat philosophy. just want download, download, download. no uploads. and then point the wrong things. before criticizing any product, see what you have done to improve it.
    10) some people do develop, improve. i have tried to contact developers to share efforts and ideas. most do not want to share anything. they want to protect themselves and make money. only some smart users with limited development background are willing to share, usually to get something they want so bad.
    11) i don't ask for new features, i make them. i don't report bugs, i fix them. i have many sugar modules and patches done (look for my posts at sugar forums). all free. but i do feel uncomfortable writing a lot of code, having someone download it to compete with myself in the services business. this is what i do for a living. this is certainly something users don't care about, but explain the item 10 above.

    the reason i'm working with sugarcrm is simply the fact that it was the first free crm i found. it could have been vtiger. i just don't see a reason for redoing all my stuff for vtiger now.

    the best solution? it doesnt matter to me. i also work with act, microsoft crm and saleslogix. all of them miss something. i'll have to keep developing...

    anyway, congratulations vtiger people. keep the good job and maybe someday i'll decide to port all my code to your product.

    come the flames!!
  • "anonymous" said:
    after a long time reading.. my 11 cents..

    1) vtiger took advantage of missing features, such as a clean/easy install procedure at the first sugar versions and created a fork. this seems to be legitimate, although i don't want want to start the license discussion all over. it seems like to main problematic point was that sugar wanted the logo on the screen and vtiger "thought" they couldn't keep the logo.
    2) it looks like many people are saying "open source" while what they mean is "free software". ideally, nobody wants to pay anything. but it looks like some people feel offended just because sugarcrm has created the pro (and now enterprise) version.
    3) someone has also mentioned that sugar is for people who wants to make money, downloading and selling modules or services. what's the problem with this? i do this, but also improve the product, just like vtiger does.
    4) i haven't done a detailed product comparison, but, as a developer for 23 years, i know that both products will have advantages and disadvantages, for ever! so, what is best now, whatever it is, might not be tomorrow. so, i recommend placing your bets long-term.
    5) sugarcrm really censors vtiger at their forums. this is a shame. i know they disagree with the fork, but maybe they should explicitly make a public statement as a "sticky" post with their point of view.
    6) sugarcrm has more marketing punch. there are no messages in their forums saying "people, go to every forum you see and post a msg saying this product is wonderful, put a link, let's grow the community..". this is not professional.
    7) sugarcrm people are not really as responsive as the guys here. vtiger really shows they listen more, they answer more. so, vtiger is giving better user support. but, apparently, both miss strong developer programs.
    8) sugarcrm does not simply unilaterally get our contributions and merge into their proprietary products. as a developer, i like to have control of what i do. and i have, with the license terms i want.
    9) most people go with the all-you-can-eat philosophy. just want download, download, download. no uploads. and then point the wrong things. before criticizing any product, see what you have done to improve it.
    10) some people do develop, improve. i have tried to contact developers to share efforts and ideas. most do not want to share anything. they want to protect themselves and make money. only some smart users with limited development background are willing to share, usually to get something they want so bad.
    11) i don't ask for new features, i make them. i don't report bugs, i fix them. i have many sugar modules and patches done (look for my posts at sugar forums). all free. but i do feel uncomfortable writing a lot of code, having someone download it to compete with myself in the services business. this is what i do for a living. this is certainly something users don't care about, but explain the item 10 above.

    the reason i'm working with sugarcrm is simply the fact that it was the first free crm i found. it could have been vtiger. i just don't see a reason for redoing all my stuff for vtiger now.

    the best solution? it doesnt matter to me. i also work with act, microsoft crm and saleslogix. all of them miss something. i'll have to keep developing...

    anyway, congratulations vtiger people. keep the good job and maybe someday i'll decide to port all my code to your product.

    come the flames!!



    if my hunch on who this guest is, then you have done some very nice work with your mods. at one time i was a strong supporter of sugarcrm and now i am here with vtiger.

    to me, the vtiger team shows me more respect and listens to the users more than the sugarteam. for this reason, i have come over to vtiger and am working to help do my part to make it better.

    in business, especially a service business like mine, you have to listen to the clients. for a company that is giving away/selling a crm program, that is more so the truth. i find it very funny that the sugarteam doesn't listen sometimes, and yet they produce a "customer relationship management" tool.. it's an oxymoron if i have ever heard of one.

    anyway... i stand behind the vtiger, and again if my hunch is correct, your work would gladly be accepted over here, and i would even say, it would probably be appreciated over here more.

    jamie
  • what a surprise. i did not know my message had been added.

    i had registered here just to post this message, then after a long long time typing, i clicked to submit and got an error.. looked for the msg and nothing..

    just to clarify, i definitely did not mean to post it anonymously.

    yes jamieinnh. i am who you thing i am. i have done many more things since we "met"... if you take a look at sugarforge you'll have an idea.
  • i love it... i found vtiger due to the lack of satisfaction from the sugarcrm vs open source sugarcrm. after reading this thread is would appear that john of sugar didn't realize os goes both ways. sugar would not be what is had they not stood on the shoulders of giants.

    let say vtiger flat out copied everything os sugarcrm, rebranded and offered a different support model - sweet for those that like os sugarcrm but find the support not fitting. just as long as vtiger is legal this senario is perfect for free markets and competion = progreesion.

    but obviously vtiger is making improvements and is forking, not just a derivative. again as long as legal, it is awesome that the vtiger team saw sugar's weakness in the business model and in software features and made it different/better.

    is this not what true os is about? not reinventing the wheel? choice? freedom? how has vtiger violated any of these principles?

    check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/comparison ... tributions
    specially the pedigree of where the distributions spawed...
    image debian crying to ubuntu about stealing their code and rebranding it... what bs! in reality ubuntu received critisium for not staying more aligned with debian.

    also notice the vast choice that users and devs have. http://distrowatch.com/ list over 350 different distros of linux. man i wish i could find a crm customized to my and my customers precise needs just as i can with linux - all at an affordable rate (sharing code).

    have we witness such banter with linux code? what happened to sco? they got set in their place by the half dozen major foundations created for that sole purpose, by the ridicule millions of users, and by the pursuit of truth.

    all the "news" i have read on the vtiger/sugar issue have been purely editorial with little to no investigative reporting. also notice the zero results of a "vtiger" search on the sugar fourms out of the 7,450 threads composed of 25,240 posts by 15,050 members not a singel one is curious about vtiger? huh? where is the freedom here?

    we must pursue truth without it we can not have freedom with out freedom we do not have open source only open source.

    one post said this is a pissing contest, i kind of agree but all the pissing is coming from sugar and after reading john' post i will be giving vtiger a trial.

    with vtiger, sugar with have to strive to do better and not "set on its laurels" and then in turn vtiger will need to defer its self and better its self.

    tell me, skeptics, how is this "bad"?

    i just hope vtiger offers a complet asterisk integration before sugar does :) - actually what would be better is a common framework that would allow seamless cross development for both platforms.

    -dutler
    ps john, that is dutler aka tom davidson, po box 803, powell, wy 82435 usa +1 877.247.9309
  • i have installed latest s and vtiger. what prompted me most to google and find vtiger was reading the spl. i do not think it is very intelligent to require others to put your logo on something that they might have modified in a bad way. or maybe they are using it in a way you do not want your brand to be associated with. a good example would be any organization that is racist in nature. i would never want my company name or logo displayed anywhere on their websites. so the intelligent thing to do is forbid the use of my company name or logo without my permission. i would stick to the usual requirements that my copyright be left in the source code. to me the most important thing is that anyone receiving the software is informed that it is open source.

    the version of s i installed is 4.0.0. today is one month since it was released and there is a bug that makes it unacceptable to me. i installed it on my secure server and could not get it to check external mailboxes. it turns out that i had to also open port 80 to get this part working. the bug tracker says it is fixed in 4.0.1 but looks to me like i have to wait for them to release the fix. i can "preview" the 4.0.1 release on their server but i can't get a patch and apply it. i think it is obvious to most that there are good reasons why people would only want the package accessible via https so this should be a high priority bug. to me that means that a release is warranted even if it only fixes this single bug.

    i don't think this is the way real open source projects operate. anyway, i'm going to focus on vtiger now.
  • "dutler" said:
    i love it... i found vtiger due to the lack of satisfaction from the sugarcrm vs open source sugarcrm. after reading this thread is would appear that john of sugar didn't realize os goes both ways. sugar would not be what is had they not stood on the shoulders of giants.


    here is what i suspect what went on (i may be wrong but i doubt it given their hostile reaction and ongoing censorship on their messageboard):

    a couple of people hear about "open source" toward the end of the bubble. they look into it and see redhat, suse, etc. all doing very well for themselves, so they ask "how can we jump on this bandwagon"

    so they look at what the market needs. they develop a crm, thinking that they can release under the mozilla license but that no one would actually <i>dream</i> of actually exercising that license. the intent was not to create an open source project, but to ride open source hype for all it's worth an to reap the benefit of suckering countless other developers into giving them free code.

    so they release sugarcrm under the mozilla license, only to find that sheeeeyit, releasing an "open source" project means that it is open and that yes, some developers will fork it off and rebrand it.

    i believe that the sugar folks had no intention of the project actually being open - the fact that the license required rebranding for redistribution by others and they threatened to sue because the vtiger folks did exactly that - adhered to the letter of the license as well as the spirit/intent of the mozilla license, proves this. (imho, i am merely theorizing) they (sugar) just wanted to get listed as an open source project to get buy in. it was a slimy move and a gross miscalculation on their part.

    i have no problem with closed-source software on linux (in fact we will be migrating from exchange on windows to scalix on linux soon, and i am anxiously awaiting adobe cs for linux). what i do have a problem with is a company releasing code under a mozilla (or gpl, or bsd, etc.) license, and then crying foul when others exercise the rights and duties such license affords. as an example, i have no respect whatsoever for sco because the very code they're bitching about was released by them under the gpl in the form of caldera linux, and later on, sco openlinux. likewise, i have no respect for sugar because they released under the mozilla license only to threaten to sue after the fact.

    <standard disclaimer to ward off litigious folks who have been known to threaten to file frivilous suits>of course, that is solely a theory, and my own personal opinion. these are not to be construed as fact, it is purely conjecture, you should not make your decision to not use sugarcrm based on this theory, yadda yadda yadda </standard disclaimer to ward off litigious folks who have been known to threaten to file frivilous suits>

    i've been away from following sugar for a while (a few years), and it was only due to our needs changing that we revisited sugarcrm and upgraded to 4.0, and it wasn't until after the upgrade that i read about everything that has transpired since we first installed sugarcrm. unfortunately we have entered too much data into 4.0 to consider switching to vtiger as it currently exists, but if a painless migration path from sugarcrm 4.0 to vtiger comes into fruition we will be switching to vtiger.

    kimberly lazarski
    http://kim.biyn.com
    katse/a+/biyn/d0t/c0m
  • from the history of s i read here, i have to agree that it makes them look a bit slimy and greedy. you all noticed the point i made about requiring the logo? that is so stupid! the license does not prevent me from putting their logo on offensive sites(like neo-nazi and kiddie porn) but would actually require it. it makes me think they were in a state of panic when they did the license change and gave it very little thought. the prices they ask for the hosted product are insane. i tried the product on a xen-based virtual server that costs about $15/month. it was obvious that i could offer a hosted s service for a lot less without buying any hardware or sacrificing any of my own bandwidth. but i can do that with vtiger and i have a lot more freedom under the licenses they selected.
  • excatly. i think guest has it right.
    i have serveral clients, ok only two, that are waiting for hosted crm from me. they liked sugar, but when i told them the vtiger vs sugar saga, then wanted no part of sugar. unfortunatly, i havnt got vtiger to work on the exsiting shared hosting that i offer... i too am moving to a xen vps solution.
    -dutler
  • dear dutler,

    thank you for your interest in vtiger crm.

    could you please let us know your shared server (apache, mysql, and php versions) spec. so that we will give our best try to help you.

    please don't hesitate to contact us if you need any support.

    best regards,
    gopal
  • "dutler" said:
    excatly. i think guest has it right.
    i have serveral clients, ok only two, that are waiting for hosted crm from me. they liked sugar, but when i told them the vtiger vs sugar saga, then wanted no part of sugar. unfortunatly, i havnt got vtiger to work on the exsiting shared hosting that i offer... i too am moving to a xen vps solution.
    -dutler


    outsourced xen hosting is affordable enough that i no longer get involved in shared hosting support with my customers. i tell them that the outsourced shared hosting i use is cheap but definitely self-service. if they want to test drive xen i can create a vps on one of my own hosts in a few minutes. i will let them run on a cheap paid vps here indefinitely as long as bandwidth usage is low. otherwise, i move them to a good xen host at a good data center. i use 3 different vendors for outsourced xen services. the plan is to eventually put xen hosts of my own into a few data centers. it's fairly easy to build a spreadsheet that shows me exactly when such a move makes sense.
  • i know you don't need another "advocate" but let's just say that sugarcrm is buggy and doesn't install easily. the vtiger team has taken what is a great idea and made it useable and reliable.