Computer Business Review is reporting that SugarCRM is considering moving to GPLv3 when it comes out. From the article:Despite that, Roberts said he was open to different approaches, suggesting that the company could offer different licenses depending on what was most appropriate, hence the likelihood that SugarCRM will offer GPL 3.0. The company also offers Microsoft Shared Source licenses. He suggested version Computer Business Review is reporting that SugarCRM is considering moving to GPLv3 when it comes out. From the article:Despite that, Roberts said he was open to different approaches, suggesting that the company could offer different licenses depending on what was most appropriate, hence the likelihood that SugarCRM will offer GPL 3.0. The company also offers Microsoft Shared Source licenses. He suggested version 3.0 could offer more protection. ‘The GPL is more strict. I like version 3.0,’ he said. As the final decision has not yet been made, it is not clear how extensively the GNU GPL would be used or whether the company will drop attribution licenses but it is likely to be one of several licensing options.John and the SugarCRM team are super, super smart. They are also laser-focused on customer value. I suspect Sugar will do whatever makes the most sense for its customers, while still retaining the ability to make money for the company (and SugarCRM makes a lot of money these days – it’s one of the brightest lights in the open source constellation). I’m glad that it’s considering the GPL. I’m somewhat of a GPL fan, as you know. But I’m even happier that SugarCRM makes an excellent product (which my company happily uses) that provides a nice halo effect for open source software, generally. We all benefit when any open source company succeeds. And open sourcing rubbish is just rubbish. But open sourcing Sugar…? Sweet. Full disclosure: I’m on SugarCRM’s advisory board. But I’m on the advisory board because of my belief in the company and its product. Open Source