[Foundation-l] Open source CRM needed for Wikimedia

[Brian Wolfe]

I was asked recently by a client to install an offshoot of SugarCRM
called C3CRM from a Chinese group that was adding the security and
reporting features to their latest beta.  I do not know how complete
either feature is, but it may be worth checking out. The installer is in
Chinese so you will have to have installed SugarCRM once before and view
the fields to understand what each field is for in the installer.

Might be worth a checkout.

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 08:43 -0400, Brad Patrick wrote:
> To follow up on the discussion about the SugarCRM Open vs. Professional:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> One of the key differentiators between Sugar Open Source and Sugar
> Professional is the team security functionality.  With Sugar Open Source,
> all users within your Sugar instance can view all records, without any
> restrictions.  With Sugar Professional, all records have a field for "Team"
> which gives permission for visibility.  You still have the flexibility of
> giving full visibility by selecting the Global team, however you can be more
> restrictive on sensitive data, such as donor information.
> 
> Another key differentiation is that Sugar Professional has reporting
> functionalities.  This allows all users to generate reports on any module
> they wish.  The data from reports is exportable, and you can also generate
> graphical representations of the reports that can be displayed on your
> individual "Dashboard".  Sugar Professional reports honor the security set
> by teams so each user can only run reports on data they have visibility to.
> 
> As for customizations you make that you wish to push back to Sugar Open
> Source, the first thing to be aware of is that Sugar Open Source is licensed
> under the Sugar Public License which you can view at:
> http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license.php.  Any new
> modules you create can be licensed under either the SPL or the commercial
> license, as long as you are not modifying existing files.  If you make
> modifications to existing files within Sugar Professional (such as layout
> changes) and wish to push those to the Sugar Open Source community then you
> would need our permission to have those fall under the SPL instead of the
> commercial license.  This is something that we would consider; it would just
> depend on the type of work was done, and which files were modified.
> 
> [/snip]
> So, the takeaway from this is that (a) Sugar Open doesn't have any reporting
> module at all; (b) the plug in modules for email and document management
> only work (presently) under the commercial license (though that may change
> in the future); (c) Sugar Open is limited in the zones of security it can
> offer based on "role" (y/n access to a particular module) vs. "team" (y/n
> data elements within module) level of security present in Pro.  The
> hierarchical group security model would work well differentiating volunteers
> from staff, access to data for reporting, and so forth.  That seems to make
> a lot of sense to us as an organization for our particular needs.
> 
> The Sugar Open Source license is the Mozilla Open Source license modified to
> cover SugarCRM.  See
> http://www.sugarforge.org/content/open-source/public-license-faq.php
> .   I like the idea of us developing tools we need and putting it back into
> the source tree generally.  We still need to be clear on the requirements.
> If it means deploying intially under the Pro license and pushing on the
> sugarforge community to free up modules etc. and making the open product
> better, I think we satisfy Eloquence's cautionary notes, which apply to any
> commercial-where-free-isn't-quite-yet-there software.
> 
> The proprietary license is at
> https://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/products/on-premise-eula.html.  (SJ, you ain't
> gonna like it.)
> 
> Talk amongst yourselves. ;-)
> 
> -Brad
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l