ZDNet article - why attribution matters

John Roberts john at sugarcrm.com
Wed Nov 29 20:06:19 UTC 2006

Here is a good example of a sugar open source derivative/fork that respects
our attribution clause. Click on the demo to see our attribution on the

SugarCRM Inc, does not generate any revenue from the Long Reach corporation,
but they have been excellent contributors to the project. It has indeed been
a non-financial win/win relationship. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Aitken [mailto:andrew at olliancegroup.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:21 PM
To: Matt Asay
Cc: lmajerus at speakeasy.net; john at sugarcrm.com
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters


I won't speak for him but as you and I chatted about today I believe John at
Sugar can attest to numerous instances of the exact same thing.

Andrew Aitken
Managing Partner
Olliance Group
o-650-493-3800 x301

Executive Assistant
Kimberly Verity
kverity at olliancegroup.com
o-650-493-3800 x206

Original Message:
From: Matt Asay <mjasay at gmail.com>
To: lmajerus at speakeasy.net, license-discuss at opensource.org
Date: Tuesday, November 28 2006 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
Um, yes.  Alfresco has scads of these, especially in Europe.  Both end users
that are happy using Alfresco with the attribution, SIs that are happy to
sell implementation services for it (without our involvement), and OEMs that
are integrating our Community (attribution required) product into theirs.
It may serve as a deterrent to some, but we have thousands of
users/OEMs/resellers on the Community product.

I guess they didn't notice that it's not open source.  They downloaded it,
accessed the source, modified it, forked it, and redistributed it.  If it
smells like open source and tastes like open source...maybe it's open

> From: <lmajerus at speakeasy.net>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:09:57 +0000
> To: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Subject: RE: ZDNet article - why attribution matters
> When in doubt about theory, look for facts.
> I would be very interested in hearing about companies that have taken code
> covered by an attribution license, such as the SPL, and distributed the
> in a way that does not financially benefit the subject of the attribution
> notice. Are there any such companies?
> Laura Majerus

More information about the License-discuss mailing list