The Open Solutions Alliance and CentricCRM?

I'm confused.  I saw Stephen Shankland's CNET article this morning announcing the creation of the Open Solutions Alliance.  CentricCRM is front and center as spokesperson.  The intent of the organization:

The Open Solutions Alliance consists of leading companies dedicated to
making enterprise-class open source software solutions work together. We
help customers put open source solutions to work by enabling application
integration, certifying quality solutions, and promoting cooperation among
open source developers. Membership is open to organizations that provide high-quality, business-ready open source solutions. [Emphasis added.]

I had a little experience with CentricCRM pretending to be an open source company a year ago while I was still at Optaros.  I read their license then, and it hasn't changed.  Here's how it starts:

You may use, copy, modify, and make derivative works from the code for internal use only.
 
You may not redistribute the code, and you may not sublicense copies or
derivatives of the code, either as software or as a service.

This is of course the community version of their "open source" solution.  The complete text is appended at the end of this post so you don't have to drive yourself nuts looking for the license on their web site.

The Open Solutions Alliance Code of Ethics contains the following bit:

Remain committed to open source business practices including supporting user and developer communities, and maintaining access to source code;

I like the Open Source Definition from the Open Source Initiative.  But before it, and even before the Free Software Foundation defined free software, we understood this sort of source code sharing meant: the software source code is always available, and the user is always licensed to modify and redistribute the software without fee, penalty, or the need to ask permission.

I have no problem with closed source companies.  I have no problem paying for software (free, open, or closed).  But CentricCRM is lying to its customers by claiming to be open source software.  The Alliance is launching itself based on a platform of hypocrisy which doesn't bode well for trust building with customers or the community.

Shankland points out that Red Hat, Novell, MySQL, and SugarCRM aren't part of the Alliance.  That makes a lot of sense.  Each has a sufficiently strong position that they need not spend money and time on yet-another-marketing-alliance when they already have the individual partnerships in place that directly serve their customers.  The CentricCRM CMO is quoted in the article saying, "Microsoft knows what we're doing and has expressed interest."  That's unfortunate, because CentricCRM's confused messaging will fit with the Microsoft IP and commercial software confusion too well. 

Here's hoping that either Dark Horse Ventures relicenses CentricCRM properly as open source immediately, or that the Alliance gets them to publicly stop using an open source message that's plainly not true.

Here is the CentricCRM Public License in its entirety:

Copyright (c) 2000-2006 Dark Horse Ventures, LLC.  All rights reserved.

This software is made available by agreeing to the Dark Horse Ventures
Centric Public License and cannot be redistributed outside of this
agreement.
 
The Centric Public License
Version 1, September 2004

Preamble

This Centric Public License is based on United States Copyright law, as defined
by Title 17 of the United States Code.

In particular, our intent is that:

You may use, copy, modify, and make derivative works from the code for internal
use only.

You may not redistribute the code, and you may not sublicense copies or
derivatives of the code, either as software or as a service.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed
by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this
Centric Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or
work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or
translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without
limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

By using the software you agree to abide by these terms.

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus
forming a work based on the Program, for internal use only.

If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries
either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, Dark Horse Ventures may add an
explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that
distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such
case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this
License.

Dark Horse Ventures may publish revised and/or new versions of the Centric
Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to
the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies
a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version",
you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version
or of any later version published by Dark Horse Ventures. If the Program does
not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever
published by Dark Horse Ventures.

If any portion of this license is held invalid or unenforceable under any
particular circumstance, the balance of the license is intended to apply and the
license as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

NO WARRANTY

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Comments

[Ken Mulcahy]

Good points. Unfortunately, CentricCRM is only one of many companies that portray themselves as Open Source when they are not.

[Ben Langhinrichs]

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. From the early days of open source, it meant that the source was open for view, not that it was opened to relicense or free for distribution. It is only the ppast few years where the sloppy use of the term "open source" has come to mean so much more. Open source means open source. Licensing is a completely different issue. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for some of the reasons the "open source" term is bad for this use.

[stephe]

Ben: I was thinking of interactions around software we had in the early 1980s through DECUS. The medium was typically tape. Some DECnet and dialup for small changes and patches.

Some developers shared binary only. Some shared source read-only (but might accept bug fixes). Some allowed modification and redistribution. A (very) few placed their work in the public domain. All did it through a simple understanding of licensing and copyright.

It may have just been a different crowd in our respective pasts. I've wondered at the differences between engineers writing software in the '80s versus comp sci grads. Engineers (at least where I grew up) were required to take a half course in IP law before they graduated. I think this gave them a simple view of copyright and licensing.