Followup on Exhibit B licences

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at
Wed Mar 7 01:41:46 UTC 2007

Rick Moen wrote:
> 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.

No problem.  I didn't know about that version before either.
>>> "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.)

Point taken (I forgot they used that phrase), but ownership of a limited
term copyright is not the same as owning an idea.  I consider this an
important, though subtle, distinction.  The law doesn't say
"intellectual property" or "piracy"; this is invented rhetoric.

> [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.

I'm willing to charitable, but this seems pretty blatant.  I think these
licenses are well-(or at least long) considered, but not by the right

Matthew Flaschen

More information about the License-discuss mailing list