On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 10:42 -0800, Troy Engel wrote:
> Grant McChesney wrote:
> >
> > There's a good summary here:
> >
> > http://voip-blog.tmcnet.com/telecom-crm/archives/2005/07/22/first-coffee-for-july-22-2005.asp
>
> Thanks -- I followed the trail a little bit more, and that article is
> actually a little non-informative about the hubjub that went on. It
> looks to be a tangled mess of morals involved, and I'm not entirely sure
> vTiger or Sugar is right.
>
> - vtiger is based on v1.0 of Sugar (so by now they're a lot different)
>
> - vtiger decided to fork before trying to contribute anything, removed
> all copyrights and rebranded work that wasn't theirs as their own code.
> The also consulted a lawyer regarding this beforehand, and within three
> hours after being contacted by Sugar they sent a letter to ESR saying
> they were right and such (which legally they may have been). Many seem
> to think this was orchestrated/premeditated and not in the spirit of
> Open Source.
>
> I'm not entirely sure that I'd want to use or stand behind vTiger, not
> unless some more in-depth research into their morals was conducted. Not
> that I'm at all a Sugar advocate, but something sure doesn't smell too
> kosher here, you know?
>
> Interesting...thanks for bringing this up.
----
you have to keep in mind that forking is one of the great strengths of
open source. That is the spirit of open source.
They obviously were not under any obligation to make contributions to
the project prior to forking it - the obligations for credits and such
were likely spelled out in the license and should have been followed but
people do make mistakes. Obviously their objective is to create an
income base derived from selling support to the project, whether it is a
better value to use vtiger or sugar is of course up to the consumer.
Craig
