SugarCRMs' deal with Microsoft

[alsutton]

News story at http://news.com.com/Microsoft+and+Su...l?tag=nefd.top

Raises two questions for me;

1) Will the open source version be changing it's license?

2) Will Linux specific issues become lower priority issues?

Al.

[kbrill]

News story at http://news.com.com/Microsoft+and+Su...l?tag=nefd.top

Raises two questions for me;

1) Will the open source version be changing it's license?

2) Will Linux specific issues become lower priority issues?

Al.

Can't speculate for #1, but on #2 with only 35% of the customer base being windows based I can't image they would drop the ball on Linux. I imagine it has more to do with syncing tools than the actual code base.

[Democritus2]

Look at the article.
"SugarCRM plans to focus on improving its support for Microsoft's Internet Information Services and enhancing its interoperability for the Redmond, Wash.-based company's Active Directory and SQL Server."

Also, need I tell people what happens to companies who deal with MS??

Beginning of end of linux support with sugar.

Also, you know MS is in bed with Salesforce.com. So what is real motivation/story here??

[kbrill]

Look at the article.
"SugarCRM plans to focus on improving its support for Microsoft's Internet Information Services and enhancing its interoperability for the Redmond, Wash.-based company's Active Directory and SQL Server."

Also, need I tell people what happens to companies who deal with MS??

Beginning of end of linux support with sugar.

Also, you know MS is in bed with Salesforce.com. So what is real motivation/story here??

While I really don't understand what M$ does in the open source market (besides bad mouth it), I don't read anything there that say that Linux support is on it's way out. SugarCRM supports Oracle, does that mean that MySQL is on it's way out? I can't think of a down side to making the product work better with IIS and adding support for MS-SQL. Although I wouldn't touch either with a 10-foot pole personally. With more than 50% of the servers running linux I can't see SugarCRM just opting out of half of their client base.

[Democritus2]

While I really don't understand what M$ does in the open source market (besides bad mouth it), I don't read anything there that say that Linux support is on it's way out. SugarCRM supports Oracle, does that mean that MySQL is on it's way out? I can't think of a down side to making the product work better with IIS and adding support for MS-SQL. Although I wouldn't touch either with a 10-foot pole personally. With more than 50% of the servers running linux I can't see SugarCRM just opting out of half of their client base.

You make it sound like their will be a choice. Again, ask yourself why MS would be wanting to do this.
It wont be a choice. Sure you can run Linux, but you wont get feature a, b or c. How many companies have tried to team with MS on various things? And what has been their fate?

This is not good.

[Democritus2]

Also, is the MS open license compatible with all the GPL code in Sugar ?

[kbrill]

You make it sound like their will be a choice. Again, ask yourself why MS would be wanting to do this.
It wont be a choice. Sure you can run Linux, but you wont get feature a, b or c. How many companies have tried to team with MS on various things? And what has been their fate?

This is not good.

It's open source PHP, how could they keep option a,b or C from linux boxes? Unless your fear is that they will drop the open source/PHP and rewrite the whole thing in .net or something. I don't read anything there that says that M$ is taking over or buying SugarCRM out. If that comes to pass, more power to them.

Oddly enough JBoss still exists (and isn't called MBoss yet) and from thier website are defiantly open source still. They even have a page that talks about all the conspiracy theroies surrounding their announcement.

I'm not sure about the license, and am not worried about it either. I doubt it's the same, but I also doubt it affects me either. I doubt it has a baloon payment clause or something. I know it has no language that says that it becomes illegal to run on Linux boxes or that Linux must be second tier to Windows.

In the end it's a just business choice made by SugarCRM. I hope it's not sinister, but I plan to sleep tonight just fine.

[kbrill]

Also, is the MS open license compatible with all the GPL code in Sugar ?

I can't imagine that hasn't been discussed. They can't hack out all of the GPL code by mid year when 4.5 is due and expect to have a stable product still. At least I hope not.

[Democritus2]

It's open source PHP, how could they keep option a,b or C from linux boxes? Unless your fear is that they will drop the open source/PHP and rewrite the whole thing in .net or something. I don't read anything there that says that M$ is taking over or buying SugarCRM out. If that comes to pass, more power to them.

Oddly enough JBoss still exists (and isn't called MBoss yet) and from thier website are defiantly open source still. They even have a page that talks about all the conspiracy theroies surrounding their announcement.

I'm not sure about the license, and am not worried about it either. I doubt it's the same, but I also doubt it affects me either. I doubt it has a baloon payment clause or something. I know it has no language that says that it becomes illegal to run on Linux boxes or that Linux must be second tier to Windows.

In the end it's a just business choice made by SugarCRM. I hope it's not sinister, but I plan to sleep tonight just fine.

Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. Sure as it stands, this RIGHT now is not so bad. However, how long before features are built into sugar that REQUIRE IIS/MS SQL/ Active Directory. It can still be open, and use hooks that simply are not available on other platforms. So it will be "Sure you can use any OS, but if you want feature ABC, then you need MS" At that point it becomes a de-facto MS product.

[its4fun]

I can't imagine that hasn't been discussed. They can't hack out all of the GPL code by mid year when 4.5 is due and expect to have a stable product still. At least I hope not.

Their coded was licensed under a modified/restricted Mozilla Public License which they called the SPL and not under the GPL. Since they own the code and encourage all contributors to release their rights they can license new code however they desire.

You can see their current license at http://www.sugarforge.org/content/op...ic-license.php

Changes in new code licensing does not affect the current or previous releases.