[JoshuaPrismon]

Originally Posted by kevindods

Wonder if anyone at Yahoo (nee Zimbra) can confirm what forks would be possible with the Zimbra Code? Open Source does not equal Free (speech) software, can we take anything from the source that has been open and use it anywhere eles? The license was based on the Mozilla license and it was possible for Debian to convert the source for Firefox to IceWeasel and free the code. My reading of the Zimbra license is that this is not possible - can anyone with knowledge confirm that assertion?

First of all: Ignore the moderator badge above. I do not speak for Zimbra here. Nor do I have any inside information about this merger. I heard about the Yahoo! purchase the same time you did.

AFAIK, the Mozilla and the Zimbra license are similar (maybe even identical). I need to go double check. You can do significant modifications to the Zimbra code, but you will need to leave the powered by Zimbra logo up there. Think of it as GPL meets BSD's attribution clause.

The IceWeasel thing was due to Debian stupidity about IP restrictions. Debian wants full creative control over every application in their system. Mozilla wasn't about to let them do that, and still call it Firefox.

Originally Posted by kevindods

As to the likely future, if you were a large hosting/marketing company with ageing mail systems and were at a competitive disadvantage - $350m dollars is a low cost way of reversing that disadvantage and removing a route for other future competition. They could just sit on the knowledge and the product and still readily justify the acquisition to the board.

Everyone here is focusing on the end product. I almost wonder if what Yahoo is going after is the AJAX technology in Zimbra. There is a massive war starting between the various API vendors, and the Zimbra toolkit is a massive amount of fairly well tested code that is targeted at large applications, rather then one off web pages.

Originally Posted by kevindods

The real drivers for a deal like this are the VCs not the employees or directors, CEOs etc. For young companies with significant high risk capital in them, even if they are doing well and have met targets, the VCs hold the company by the short n curlies.

From my experience in the .COM era, Zimbra isn't a particularly high risk corporation, esp when compared to companies like Google, Yahoo, or the other fly by night AJAX companies. Don't believe me?Take a look at the terms of the deal, and look at who gets the cash. If Yahoo were stabler then Zimbra, don't you think the VC'ers would have asked for Yahoo stock instead of Yahoo cash?

Originally Posted by kevindods

There are no certainties in this life and it isn't/can't be known for certain whether this deal will be good or bad. In fact there probably isnt a simple good or bad, it is probably far too grey and indistinct an outcome to use such black and white terms.

That's true enough.

Originally Posted by kevindods

The problem we have here as customers is we don't know the 'real' motives for the Yahoo! move. We felt we knew the Zimbra staff and management were geared to succeed with the software as they had personal commitment to success, demonstrated in the forums, development and support apart from the obvious monetary drives common to us all. They can now measure that success in terms of this deal and feel justified that they have produced a good product, so for them I am glad to say it must be a good deal.

Given that the staff isn't changing, I am not worried about this.

Originally Posted by kevindods

Perhaps even Yahoo! hasnt determined what to do yet. $350m is £175m and that is not really big money for Yahoo! It is good for the VCs who pumped in $30 (£15m) and the staff/management who had shares, they get some cash based financial compensation to comfort them if things go bad for them. Yahoo! could sit and let Zimbra run to v5 and then take time to consider where their best interest lie. So for 12-18months there is no need to change anything indeed changing anything significant for any acquisition would be a folly as it can take that long to get to understand it and prepare it for change.

If Yahoo doesn't consider 350 million big money, the will be out of business before the end of the year. Esp since this is _cash_. Not stock, not options. What's even more interesting is that this is something that is outside of Yahoo's normal business niche. That's strongly indicative that they have thought this through. How many people at Yahoo have the authority to sign checks this big?

Originally Posted by kevindods

What is sad from my perspective is that I settled for a product that appeared open but not free and I think the lesson here is that this type of hybrid license and product does not in itself provide the benefits most users imagined it would. Yes fast development, growing company but the core of open and free is the essential guarantor for the user and still seen as a 'problem' to some commercial authors.

That's a big brush you are wielding. This is not particularly surprising train of thought - it's part of the reason that Stallman is so dismissive of Linux, Mozilla , Java and Gnome. For all of the FSF's outspoken vitriol on this issue, there is a reason everyone runs Linux instead of GNU herd, uses Java for programming, runs their desktop in Gnome, and views web pages served from Apache in Mozilla. Everyone one of those packages are or were commercially backed and form the foundation of the Microsoft alternatives today.