I’m constantly amazed at how no one calls SugarCRM on their deceptive open source license. Cliffs Notes: They call it open source, but it by no means qualifies as such and OSI will never certify it because doesn’t meet the definition of open source! Apparently, because they’ve got a bunch of money no one made a stink when they switched their license, and went from a legitimate “open source” company to well, shareware type license.
Matt Asay (smart, sharp, open source advocate) thinks it’s copacetic (check out the thread here). Is SugarCRM allowed to change the definition of open source to suit their own business model? Am I the only one willing to say without any standard (OSI) the term open source will become dilluted and viewed with skepticism?
PS – I think I’m just being awnry now… I should lay off it I suppose… Or invite John Roberts to have a beer and see if he can convince this skeptic it’s not shareware.