Faste and loose with "open source"
Faste and loose with "open source"
Posted Jan 11, 2007 8:27 UTC (Thu) by jhs (guest, #12429)Parent article: Optaros publishes an open source catalog
Page seven implies that SugarCRM releases its code as open source, when that is not the case. This is covered in the LWN article, "What is Open Source?". SugarCRM has attribution requirements in its license, and it is not "OSI Approved" (nor is it free software).
Maybe OSI approval is less meaningful, so it doesn't matter much. I wouldn't have pointed this out, except that the other comment about qmail's open source status raised a doubt for me about the author's attention to detail (or "attention to truth"). This is important when the document proposes to educate the industry about open source, with nice graphs and fonts.