Its not that I'm not willing to pay for it - its that I don't see the value in paying $2k for 10 users when my customers can get unlimited users and more functionality in vTiger for free - without the bait and switch they'd get with SugarCRM. Its a question of value.
For better or worse, that's the market you're in. You obviously recognize that or you wouldn't be considering the GPL. It just seems to me that your best chance to compete against vTiger and SugarCRM is to beat them in the open source market (and no, those two concepts are not mutually exclusive). Beat them in technology and value. The proposition that Splendid is the same as Sugar - just built on MS technologies - just doesn't seem to be enough.
I don't know what kind of resources are available to you. I'm making the assumption that the current arrangement isn't working as well as you'd like or you wouldn't be considering a more open license. I could certainly be wrong about that. Regardless, making money with any business model is a reasonable proposition only if you've got a product that stands above its competition. I think your best chance to have that kind of product is to invite developers to participate in making it better. Asking developers to pay for that priviledge seems like a long shot.
-k
Actually, moving to GPL3 would mean giving away less. Where as today we provide a full-featured CRM, a GPL release would only match SugarCRM's Community Edition features. All the other features that we provided today for free would be only available in an edition that costs money. Our current thought is to add an inexpensive Full edition that would have all features, but no source code, and target companies that don't need to customize the app. The Professional version would include most features and the source code. We would eventually offer an Enterprise edition that matches the features of the SugarCRM Enterprise edition, and charge accordingly.
Moving to GPL would also mean that we would stop offing a free runtime license.
The problem we are having is that people just don't understand the concept of free runtime. They simply believe that it is too good to be true. By moving to a more traditional and expected licensing model, we expect less confusion.
Do you really not see a difference between a PHP app and a .NET app? Do you really believe that, as a developer, it does not matter? I could understand if you felt that way when comparing C# and Java apps, but not when comparing PHP to a true OO language/platform.
As a developer I would *much* prefer to work w/ Splendid. Not only does it user better technology, I think you've done a better job with its design, at least on the ASP.NET side of things. Obviously I can't comment about the data side.
A end-user, on the other hand, not only wouldn't understand the difference, in my experience they don't care. There only concern is functionality and reliability. Granted you could make the argument that a with better technology and design you at least get better reliability. Still, if Sugar and vTiger work well (and they do) then that argument is moot.
Maybe I don't understand the free runtime concept - I actually didn't see anything about it on the professional product page (http://splendidcrm.com/Products/SplendidCRMProfessional/tabid/72/Default.aspx). All I see is a per-user license. I did google it on your site and that seems to apply only if you're hosting SplendidCRM.
I'm trying to understand the relationship between your licensing and that of SugarCRM. Seems like I've read that your licensing is a result of theirs, i.e. your restrictions are based on the fact that you've built your product on their model and are thereby obligated to follow their license. Is that correct? How does that result in the need to encrypt your database code? Or is that just a business decision to protect your intellectual property? I'm not making any judgements here (I sell software too!), just trying to make sure I understand things correctly so I can converse intelligently about the subject at hand :-)
We have been and currently are in discussion with Splendid CRM with respect to the licensing model. I agree that the current Splendid Licensing is somewhat unclear - not necesarily wrong - just a bit hazy and needs to be much cleaner - especially with the obvious connection to sugar. In fact I rather like the idea of following the community edition/full edition/professional/enterprise model that has been suggested because it fills that need and give Splendid an opportunity to not only foster a community but to also sell commercially in a more structured way.
With respect to a comparison with vTiger, while it looks good ( I just downloaded and installed it ) it is of course LAMP like Sugar - so there is no comparison. There a many open source lamp crm's and platforms and all sorts but actually only very few open source .net products. Dotnetnuke and umbraco spring to mind - but they are of course cms'ses - and yes you can build crm within a cms but my money is on a dedicated crm. Dangerous to blur the boundaries - it is very easy to explain the value of a crm system but as soon as you get into cms and "one-size-fits-all solutions" the clients start to think you are selling a website and then it becomes a marketing rather than a business decision. (Queue arguments about shades of blue and position of logos etc etc oh and can we have a little flash?... no thanks) Sorry that is slightly off topic...
<note>Would note that vTiger does not follow the Sugar License with respect to the copyright notices on user interface screens although this could be because it is derived from 1.1.2 rather than 1.1.3</note>
As far as vTiger, or Sugar for that matter, why would an end-user care whether its LAMP, WAMP, etc...? If it works, it works. And yes, vTiger does follow the Sugar License (as it existed when they forked) to the letter. But this isn't really about them. vTiger and Sugar are only relevant in the sense that they are the competition. (Having said that, sometimes it seems as if Splendid doesn't see Sugar as a competitor. I'd love to see you guys go your own way and stop following Sugar's lead! Distinguish your selves by making a functionally better product.)
As a developer, I think I've made it clear that I would much prefer working with Splendid. Not only do I think Splendid has a greater upside, the vast majority of my experience is SQL/.NET.
I agree that a tiered model like the one being proposed is a fine way to go. It gives users and developers lots of options. I would say this however: make sure you know what you're getting into. Sugar made a *huge* mistake in assuming that people wouldn't take the license seriously. Their reaction to vTiger made it clear that even though they were saying "open source! open source!" they considered their code proprietary. Forking is a fact of life in open source - and a healthy one at that. If you're not prepared for that eventuality, don't open the source. I for one, however, would also like to see a real open source option in the .NET space.
I'll finish by saying that my point has always been this - make a better product. Put forth a better value. From the developer point of view, yes, but more importantly from the end-user point of view. The developer is important in that they can help you make that better product. That is if they have the incentive and right to do it. And if that's what you really want. Open source is a means to get that better product, not an end in itself. There's nothing wrong with proprietary software *if it can sustain your business*.
Splendid folks, I look forward to seeing where you take your product.
