There have been extensive discussions on the OSI website about the use of non-approved licenses such as Sugar's and the rights of companies such as Sugar to call themselves Open Source.
Under such pressure, [another CRM provider] has moved from their own variant of a license to one that is truly Open Source and is approved by the OSI.
But there has been silence from SugarCRM on the issue. This is not sustainable. Pressure will build on organisations such as Sugar to either comply or to stop using the words Open Source in their marketing.
But why is the SPL a bad license ..... this is you guys who don't know a lot about Open SOurce and maybe don't care .... those of you who do, already know these things.
1. It's stupid .....
OK, if everybody in the Open Source movement carried an attribution license like Sugar's then we'd have applications with login screens like this ............ OR WORSE
[SugarForge admins: Removed image containing blatant advertisement of the other CRM. The image consisted of a login screen populated by several logos of well known open source providers (Apache, MySQL, Zend, etc.) as well as the competitive CRM product. It was meant to convey an overcrowded login screen presumably resulting from attribution requirements of all underlying components.]
2. It's hypocritical
Sugar has made extensive use of other Open Source libraries and components on a non-attributable basis .... clearly what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.
3. It's dangerous
Open Source will work mostly because of community. It's together we stand, divided we fall. Sugar is divisive. We have seen what Microsoft has tried to do with FUD tactics in the patent arena. If Open Source is to survive, it has to survive the threat from the proprietary vendors.
Sugar needs to decide:
Are we Proprietary .... in which case - be honest, go your own way and good luck
Are we Open Source - in which case, use an OSI approved license and fight the good fight.
There is no half way house.