Followup on Exhibit B licences

Rick Moen rick at
Tue Mar 6 10:15:17 UTC 2007

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at

> It appears version 1.1.2 of SPL (the version governing the code vTiger
> forked)  does not have these problems....
> Is there really a 1.1.4? is still
> showing 1.1.3.

That part (only) was from my (seemingly) inaccurate recollection of my
reading the older licence terms, which reading was around two months ago.
Sometimes, you take a chance on memory and miss.  Sorry about that.

> > "IP theft" _would_ be if vTiger had violated SugarCRM's copyright property
> > rights in any way whatsoever.
> Copyright law doesn't recognize intellectual property rights of any
> sort....

Is the word "ownership" in 17 U.S.C. 201-205 unclear?  (Perhaps I should
let it pass, as this digression is fundamentally irrelevant to the
topic, but really, Matthew.)

> [...] nor does it consider copyright infringement theft.

Obvious John Roberts theatrics.  Not otherwise worthy of comment, really.

> The BSD notice is still supposed to be in the documentation somewhere
> ("disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with
> the distribution.").

_If any_ such documentation and other materials, yes, there must be
something buried therein.  But this quibble doesn't really affect my point.

[SugarCRM being surprised, indignant, etc., at vTiger fork reflecting,
IMVAO, the former's ineptitude:]

> I think they are attempting to block reuse, and that they are doing so
> deliberately.

I was trying to be, I guess, charitable:  My experience is that
businesses' evolving software licence strategies are often primarily
reactive, and seldom well thought out.

It may seem strange to envision a firm literally not realising that its
licence permits commercial forks, but I can definitely see the

Rick Moen                 "Anger makes dull men witty, but it keeps them poor."
rick at                                   -- Elizabeth Tudor

More information about the License-discuss mailing list