Hi,

I kinda like this discussion, so let's add a post from one of the vtiger's team in their forum:

"SPL 1.1.2 (the previous license) is compatible with Mozilla Public License, a well known open source license. The main (only?) change between SPL 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 is the requirement for incorporation of their logo, which does not conform to open source guidelines published by OSDL. In fact, as of SPL 1.1.2, use of their logo was prohibited, which is standard practice - for example use of Red Hat or JBoss logo is prohibited in third-party products incorporating code from those systems.

We would like our distribution to comply 100% with open source guidelines, so that it can be freely used in any open source project. Hence, post their 1.0 code, vtiger has not incorporated their code.

Mani"

The topic is "how does vtiger include latest sugarcrm codebase version?" and can be found here http://www.vtiger.com/discussions/viewtopic.php?t=491&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I like SugarCRM very much but just for the knowledge whenever you post the name vtigerCRM in their forum it get's censored like ......CRM. This is odd, to say the least.

Anyway, let me tell you that i understand your point and i understand in wich side o barricade you're on.

Companies and CEOs have their duties their responsabilities, have expenses and people to pay, and they decide what's the best way to run their bussiness.

Open Source is another way of making bussiness, sometimes it may be scary to interpret a bussiness in wich you don't have propritary control over nothing and make money flow.
Open Source is based on direct service to the client, and service is never cheap, and it is diferenciative, no one can give better support than the ones o built the beast (ok microsoft is not included here, their support sucks, and isn't cheap either, maybe that's why bill is so full of it $).
As to MS, I have the strong believe that what made MS was piracy. Believe or not but this is the fastest method to increase software's recognition and dessimination. Even MS was recently offering/sending packages of their sotware to American military for supposed testing they said.

Now about your points:
1)As to licenses let me tell you the first thing I do when installing something is not to read the license, because all it says is "I made this, you paid for it but don't count on it for doing what you want, if it blows your bussiness is your problem, i got nothing to do with it and don't even think of sueing me because my lawyer wrote this little thing just in case. By the way if you don't agree with me don't even think about installing it, it is mine. If you even think about passing my little baby to a friend or 40000 friends, remember that i made this cow, so the milk is mine and i will see you in court.". I further like the begining of the documentation "Thank you very much for purchasing of the new ... version ...". As to copyright, you and i know that any 12 year boy with a DVDRW 16X as copyright to copy anything, he has no concept of enterprise and slicing profit with is acts. You are right when you say "Anyone taking someone's work and stripping it of its copyright only to be relabeled as another's is just plain wrong, unethical, and self-defeating." I myself feel sad when this happens to me, seeing people getting credit of something they didn't do, it is called stab in the back but "hey" isn't this what happens everyday in enterprises, between workmates.
There will allways be ones who rise by themselves and others who rise at the cost of first. Sad but true.
I feel sorry for small software companies, and hope they survive by buying when i can.

2)I think things are fine as they are. Explanation: propietary software may patent whatever they want, they pay for it and there's a lot of public workers who need their hands meet around copyright.
Open Source people have their copyleft their Boston Tea Party, maybe software instead of tea but i think this is a revolution going on and you know how this is in managnment, you may be the train, you may catch the train our you may be cought by it.
Software is not real estate, is a digital representation of a need and a solution, i am happy to see that Open Source is getting to be a valid alternative to proprietary software, what i mean is that whatever function you have in propietary you can have from Open Source, so windows or linux will correspond equally to the needs of the user has to Office Documents, painting, browsing, mailing ...
Software houses will continue to be nedded because the will allways have support needs.
Eventhough i much apreciate Open Source I am no extremist to say that all software should Open Sourced, no, the freedom of choise should allways be open, one is free to decide if he wants his source code to be available to the public or not. Of course the pressure of Open Source is tremendous, but no one should be forced to do a thing he does not consider right.

3)Yes tolerance is a very nice word, and so is equilibrium and freedom.

Thank you for leting me post I really enjoy a good conversation.

Pedro A.