Quoting Richard Fontana ([email protected]): > The only thing I would take issue with is characterizing what SugarCRM > did (at least if you're talking about the initial version that was > released under GPLv3, since I haven't followed it since then) as a > "perversion", because as a matter of historical record it was done > with the FSF's blessing, and through a negotiation with the FSF's > lawyers (which, at the time and for that purpose, was me).
Well, thanks for posting that. I had heard odd tales suggesting that FSF at the time considered copacetic SugarCRM's adaption of GPLv3 clause 3b to mandate immutable runtime display of trademarked logos and advertising on every user interface screen of the program and all derivatives -- and considered those tales a real head-scratcher at the time. Many people, I think, didn't quite grasp how much SugarCRM's grudge over the 2004 vTigerCRM fork, and their reaction to try to (IMO) hobble any third-party commercial competitors remained with them, thereafter. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
