Hello , I do not want to disrespect towards all associated sugar and suite crm developers , just want to know that , it is necessary to keep notification on every screen or it is Ok to put a separate page regarding license agreements… thanks
Yes, it is mandatory and a condition of the license. If you use the software you have to display the logos on every page.
Thanks Admin for your reply,
Is it necessary to show that line on same place or we can move left or right somewhere …
I think you can move it left or right. Main concern is - it must be on webpage so suite user can read it.
“Yes, it is mandatory and a condition of the license. If you use the software you have to display the logos on every page.”
Which license you are referring to? AGPL does not have anything related to trademark or footer. Your git repo has this AGPL standard license:
If someone forks Suitecrm to create either industry specific solution or newer version then the new developer should be able to change footer without changing license. AGPL requires to keep the license copy intact which is usually inside source code and not a “branding campaign” in every footer. Also a link to download the source code is required. But that can very well be in terms and conditions or something like that. There is no GPL or AGPL requirement to do blatant branding campaign on every instance’s footer for suitecrm or sugarcrm.
I have used many open source software like moodle or wordpress etc, no one requires such footer in UI. On source code level, I completely understand but not on UI level.
I know GPL very well, can you point me anywhere on gpl.org or other places where AGPL fork is required to keep some branded footer?
I understand why suitecrm and sugar wants to put there names in footer, its marketing for their brand. But that is not inline with true open source spirit. If xyz company forks suitecrm, then abc forks xyz then the footer should say “Powered by xyx, abc, supercharged with suitecrm and sugarcrm…” ? Many developers have contributed and still contributing to sugar and suite code. There names are not in the footer. Also suitecrm is promoted as AGPL and not as commercial license so it will be misleading marketing by Sale Agility to force everyone to use their trademark in the footer.
AGPL or GPL are meant to force sharing of modified source code, hence open source. None of them talks about branding and trademark in footer.
Please clarify where we can find the footer requirements in license.
Nevermind, I did search about found this clause in source code.
In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3,
these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the "Powered by
SugarCRM" logo and “Supercharged by SuiteCRM” logo. If the display of the logos is not
reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must
display the words “Powered by SugarCRM” and “Supercharged by SuiteCRM”.
Now the question is, the clause does not say hyperlink and I can’t see logo. I see only text with link when I try the suitecrm trial on suitecrm website. By logo, do you mean the text or there is image associated somewhere?
Also the clause does not it has to be footer, which font or color. So in theory, developer can decide where and how to put this as long as its there on UI?
The core of this is:
Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words “Powered by SugarCRM” and "Supercharged by SuiteCRM
And the core of that is the “must display”
So, fork the code, but on every page, the user must be able to see “Powered by SugarCRM” and “Supercharged by SuiteCRM”
There’s no ambiguity or obfuscation.
For clarity, the dictionary definition of display:
a setting or presentation of something in open view
a clear sign or evidence
an eye-catching arrangement by which something is exhibited
This is how i read the 7(b) clause without adding subjective interpretation or marketing bias from suitecrm or sugarcrm.
- Text display is requirement, not hyperlink. Not sure why someone added hyperlink to sugar and suite branding messages. The license did not require it.
- It does not have to be footer, it can go other place visible.
- 7(b) does not say each and every page UI page. Keeping the license file intact in Source code anyone in open source world can understand, thats normal. But I think interpretation of following words as each and every page is not correct. It says display with legal notice. I am not sure how someone is interpreting this as each and every page.
Here is properly formatted wording for readers.
[color=#ff8800]In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the “Powered by SugarCRM” logo and “Supercharged by SuiteCRM” logo. If the display of the logos is not reasonably feasible for technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the words “Powered by SugarCRM” and “Supercharged by SuiteCRM”. [/color]
Another question, if someone purchases add-on then the client/purchasing party should be able to create copies of it without having to pay for it assuming it keeps the AGPL license. I see that the add-on require purchase of additional licenses for additional production instances. Is this requirement of purchasing additional license for support purposes only or there is special clause in AGPL these add-ons are using which prohibits them from using in multiple instances? Can anyone point me to this additional special clause or license?
I am referring to add-on in the suitecrm store.
My advice, before you start accepting your own interpretation as gospel, is to do what we did before we forked SugarCRM and to consult a top notch open source lawyer.
The advice we got was unequivocal.
“On every screen and on every page … prominently”.
But why fork? Why not work with the community that’s here?