OK, I agree, your most recent comment did seem more well thought through. As for the blog post, it made interesting reading, and indeed, I agree that the "Zimbra Powered" clause in the (now YPL) license effectively neuters any attempt to fork the product. That is, in fact, my primary objection to the YPL for Zimbra. (Note, however, that this is a purely philosophical objection - I'm not nearly bright enough to e able do anything with a software project of that magnitude.) As onerous as that clause might be, I'd disagree with Karl about it disqualifying Zimbra from properly using the term "Open Source". All of this however, which was the focus of Karl's blog post, doesn't seem to be your real issue with Zimbra.
Your real beef with Zimbra seems to be that it is a corporation (or now a subsidiary of a corporation) that seeks profit. Noticing your handle, "Ubuntu Warrior", I'd wager that you like Canonical's ideals more than Zimbra/Yahoo!'s. I do too. While I use Ubuntu on most computers that I own, and many that I am responsible for at work, too, I find myself wondering if Canonical can stick with its business model indefinately. How long can a corporation continue to loose money and stay in business? I hope that they can survive with their current business model, but I am sceptical.
While I agree that profit is not necessarily the ideal motivation for writing software (open source or otherwise), it is an effective one. Even Karl, in the comments on his post
that you referred to, explains this:[QUOTE]Sure, itÃ‚â€™s about community, among other things, but open source software also depends on corporate money, both private (VC) and publicly-traded. Much Linux kernel development is paid for by for-profit companies, acting in their own interests; OpenOffice.org
is pretty much entirely funded by Sun
a ton of X
Windows development is subsidized by corporations; Google
both funds and releases a lot of open source software; the project I work on, Subversion
, was started by and still receives significant development funding from CollabNet
Ã‚â€¦ Open source software would not be where it is today, nor would it be maintainable, without corporate resources. Actually, itÃ‚â€™s been like that for a long time, itÃ‚â€™s just that many users donÃ‚â€™t realize it, I think.
So be anti-corporate, if you want, but donÃ‚â€™t fool yourself: this wouldnÃ‚â€™t be happening with purely volunteer labor. We left that world long ago.[/QUOTE]
As for companies that sell versions of open source software, that is a long list as well: MySQL's
Enterprise Edition, Red
Hat and Novell's
SUSE Linux desktops and Servers. I could continue, but I think you get the point.
I think that no one supporting Zimbra intends to be belligerent, but it's easy to get defensive when someone starts attacking something that you have either worked hard on or just really like. Welcome to the Zimbra Forums!