[HN Gopher] Grommunio an open source Exchange replacement
___________________________________________________________________
Grommunio an open source Exchange replacement
Author : rmason
Score : 96 points
Date : 2021-09-25 05:29 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (grommunio.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (grommunio.com)
| psd1 wrote:
| Delighted to hear about this. I'm very over the limitations of
| the outlook/o365 solution I use for my personal mail.
|
| I give a different address for every sign-up.
|
| Outlook connecting to a mapi account just won't let you do that.
| No matter what you set as a from:, some genuine mailbox address
| gets inserted into the headers.
|
| On-prem exchange had powerful transport rules. O365 has toy
| transport rules.
|
| Obviously the answer is to move to IMAP and, probably, change
| hosting provider. But I'm really familiar with mapi, outlook
| anywhere, and all the good bits of the ecosystem.
|
| Might have to consider going back on-prem, this may be the
| answer. Certainly not running full-fat exchange in my house.
|
| Claims to support mapi. Devil is in the details. (MS Word's doc
| format is nominally an open standard, good luck anyone trying to
| implement it though!)
| robxu9 wrote:
| There's also SOGo (https://www.sogo.nu/), which I'd be interested
| to see how Grommunio stacks up against that. SOGo has been pretty
| reliable for my personal deployments.
| nix23 wrote:
| Free and "Opensource" for less then 5 users, to be more
| precise...what a stupid price-list.
| capableweb wrote:
| It's free for less than 5 users and the "open source" part is
| open source no matter how many users you're using. Not sure
| where you get the part that it's not open source once you're
| above a certain number of users?
|
| The repository/code is the same for all plans:
| https://github.com/grommunio
| nix23 wrote:
| Again the price-list is pure stupidity. And limiting the
| usage of a "Opensource" product is even more stupid.
|
| >It's free for less than 5 users and the "open source"
|
| That's not how Free (yes it's AGPL) and Opensource Software
| works. In fact i am not even sure if one could do that under
| the GPL. Give me ONE single other FOSS Project where you have
| such a restriction (remember it's not a service but software,
| running on MY instance), restricting the USE and function of
| the Software on YOUR Computer was probably the first or
| second point to even invent the GPL.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Again the price-list is pure stupidity
|
| Could you try to specify why exactly you think so instead
| of just spewing your opinion without any sort of reasoning?
|
| > And limiting the usage of a "Opensource" product is even
| more stupid
|
| Again, why? You seem to be confusing the meaning of
| "free"/"gratis" with "open source". The code is public and
| released under the "GNU Affero General Public License",
| making it open source and even copy-left. What more can you
| ask for (besides "I WANT FREE/GRATIS SOFTWARE" which is
| what you seem to actually be annoyed about)
| nix23 wrote:
| >Again, why?
|
| Limiting the USE of a opensource product is a stupid
| thing todo. The great thing about OSS is that your NOT
| dependent on a Manufacturer, but here you are if you have
| more than 5 users (that makes it even worse). IF your are
| truly OSS don't restrict your product on usage, but
| present a great Support-Team.
|
| This is not better then ANY Microsoft product with it's
| CAL's, but MS is probably not going bankrupt in the next
| 5 years, DONT artificially restrict the USE of your
| Product!
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| It's doesn't limit the use of the software, it limits the
| use of their instance.
|
| The licence is GPL, you can use it the way you want on
| your own machine.
| omnicognate wrote:
| It's not hosted afaict. They're selling support.
| nix23 wrote:
| >It's doesn't limit the use of the software, it limits
| the use of their instance.
|
| Same same, it's Not a Service but Software, so it's MY
| instance.
|
| >The licence is GPL, you can use it the way you want on
| your own machine.
|
| That's the problem..i cant (5 User limit)...and btw it's
| AGPL
| croes wrote:
| Is the limit in open source code? If no, where is the
| problem, if yes, remove it, it's open source.
| omnicognate wrote:
| It is a bit weird. AFAICT this isn't a hosted service.
| It's AGPL code you host yourself, and yet as nix23 says,
| at https://grommunio.com/product/ there's:
|
| > Community
|
| > max. 5 user - free
|
| With no further explanation (the site isn't very clear
| generally).
|
| IANAL but I don't think you can do that with AGPL. If
| it's AGPL licensed and you're hosting it yourself you can
| use it for anything as long as you abide by the terms of
| the license (including the "Affero" bit).
|
| It would be different if this were (A)GPL code together
| with a hosted service you can use free with up to 5
| users, but I _think_ that 's not what this is.
|
| Edit: The thing they're selling appears to be _support_
| and limiting free support to 5 users would be fine (and
| generous!) but they make it clear with Community you don
| 't get any support so I don't see any basis for
| restricting the number of users.
| solarengineer wrote:
| I read it as limiting the number of users of the
| downloadable ISO or VM appliance from their website.
|
| The code itself is PHP (server-side), Javascript (browser-
| side), and Python (API). I didn't click through the other
| components.
| omnicognate wrote:
| They don't say anything to that effect, and I think they
| could only do that if they held the copyright to all the
| code (which I doubt they do) and released the ISO/VM
| under a different (non-GPL) license.
| jorams wrote:
| It's straight up FOSS. What they're selling is support. I don't
| know if anyone responding here has read the rest of the Product
| page[1], but I thought it was quite clear:
|
| > In order to be able to use the features with support...
|
| > Our individual support services for the features of the
| product can be found below under 'Packages & Pricing'.
|
| The comparison table distinguishes between features with and
| without support, and "Support not included" in the part of the
| table that is _just_ about support. They never mention selling
| anything but support.
|
| [1]: https://grommunio.com/product/
| nix23 wrote:
| >It's straight up FOSS
|
| No it's not if you HAVE to pay when you have more then 5
| Users. What other big established OSS-Project makes something
| like that...NOT A SINGLE ONE.
|
| >The comparison table distinguishes between features with and
| without support,
|
| And the maximal users...just read under Package Community.
| Since it's not a Service but Software i see not point in
| restricting the usage, and not sure if it's even possible
| under (A)GPL.
| jagger27 wrote:
| I think you're misunderstanding the GPL. From the top of
| the Preamble section:
|
| > When we speak of free software, we are referring to
| freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are
| designed to make sure that you have the freedom to
| distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if
| you wish)
|
| You are free to modify Grommunio's freely available source
| code and remove any user cap limits, as long as you make
| your source code changes available.
|
| In fact I'm fairly certain that Section 10. "Automatic
| Licensing of Downstream Recipients" protects your right to
| make this modification:
|
| > You may not impose any further restrictions on the
| exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this
| License. For example, you may not impose a license fee,
| royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted
| under this License, and you may not initiate litigation
| (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)
| alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making,
| using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program
| or any portion of it.
|
| I'm curious where you think this price model isn't allowed
| under the GPL.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
|
| (I am not a lawyer.)
| omnicognate wrote:
| Sure, but then they say "Community - Max 5 user - free" (on
| the page you link), and Community has no support. The point
| is they can't restrict the user count on a piece of AGPL
| software they aren't providing any hosting or support for.
|
| I suspect it's a mistake on the website tbh.
| jagger27 wrote:
| What clause of the AGPL forbids this?
| omnicognate wrote:
| It's more that the AGPL allows _you_ to use the software
| without any such restriction. If they license it under
| the AGPL you can use it with as many users as you want.
| In fact it requires that if you host an instance you make
| the code available to the users, for _them_ to use
| /host/modify/distribute themselves (section 13, "Remote
| Network Interaction").
|
| They could publish it under a modified AGPL, an "AGPL
| with user count restriction" of some kind (which wouldn't
| be AGPL at all - they would have to modify it heavily for
| it not to be a self-contradictory mess). However:
|
| A) They would need to own the copyright in _all_ of the
| code involved so they can publish it under whatever
| license they want. To the extent their system contains
| GPL /AGPL code copyrighted by others (and I expect it
| does), distributing it under an incompatible license like
| this would be a copyright violation by them against the
| owners of that code. (This is in section 10, "Automatic
| Licensing of Downstream Recipients", where it says "You
| may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise
| of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.")
|
| B) There is no indication they are attempting to do this,
| other than that one mention on pricing page, which I
| suspect is a mistake. The repos simply contain the AGPL
| license.
| jagger27 wrote:
| Sorry, I still don't see why having user count
| limitations would be a violation. The way I read it, they
| are compliant with Section 13. They are providing access
| to source code, as required.
|
| Section 10 just says that they can't litigate if I
| use/modify their freely available source code how I
| please.
|
| Let's say somewhere in their code there is a check for
| "user_count <= 5". This isn't a downstream restriction of
| GPL rights, it's just a part of the code as they wrote it
| and I'm free to change it, as long as I make my changes
| to the code accessible.
|
| I don't see why this technical limitation would infringe
| any upstream GPL rights either.
| omnicognate wrote:
| Are you claiming there is such code? It would be a
| bizarre and pointless thing to add.
|
| Edit: To be clear, we are talking about different things.
| I assumed you meant placing a licensing requirement of
| only 5 users, which would not be possible for the reasons
| I explained. You appear to be talking about putting a
| restriction into the code, which as you say would not be
| prohibited by the GPL, but which would be entirely
| pointless for obvious reasons. It's an interpretation of
| their pricing plan that I hadn't considered, though, and
| I'm curious if that's what they're doing.
| ABS wrote:
| never heard of this, it took me 3 clicks to find that:
|
| 1) "grommunio is an open source based groupware product with
| supported features and offers companies and users various
| packages as subscriptions." https://grommunio.com/product/
|
| 2) the actual open source project grommunio is based on is
| called Gromox https://gromox.com/
| nix23 wrote:
| Then don't click, but read would be the great idea ->
| Community Max 5 Users.
|
| https://grommunio.com/product/
| croes wrote:
| And what prevents you from downloading the code, compiling
| it yourself and using it for any number of users?
| nix23 wrote:
| In the true spirit of opensource, make some barriers in
| your code.
| croes wrote:
| So the barrier is in the code or is it not?
| rkagerer wrote:
| As someone who ran their own Exchange server for a couple decades
| and is tired of the deteriorating admin experience, this excites
| me.
|
| Can anyone comment on how bug-free, battle-tested and performant
| it is?
|
| Has anyone used Outlook Redemption against it (which IIRC
| exercises a lot of the MAPI protocol)?
| rapsey wrote:
| Seems to be all c++. Likely performant but no way would I run
| this for my company. God knows how many security issues it has.
| topspin wrote:
| > God knows how many security issues it has.
|
| Are you sure absolute omnipotence is sufficient to calculate
| that?
| danuker wrote:
| I'd bet on the omniscience part.
| psd1 wrote:
| Tangent, apologies! But vaguely related to topic of mail
| migrations.
|
| What are people using as desktop mail clients on Windows?
|
| I think I'm finally ready to drop outlook
|
| - keyboard navigation is shit - modal dialogues everywhere -
| obstinate about headers on outbound mail
|
| I had a look at emClient but the trial ran out before I could
| evaluate it, lol. I'll spend money but not without evaluating it
| first.
|
| I need: - good search - flexibility of outbound "from" address -
| strong rules and filters. Ability to run external script on an
| incoming mail would be a game changer.
|
| Thunderbird is too graphically ugly for my eyeballs. I want a
| product that looks like it was developed after 2003...
| jraph wrote:
| Getting used to Thunderbird's appearance is probably worth it.
| It's just a question of habit and the UI itself is very
| efficient.
|
| It can be customized, too, I think, but I have never bothered
| with this.
|
| It seems to fulfill your requirements.
| sunsetandlabrea wrote:
| I use Postbox on Windows at least. Have done for years. Far
| from perfect, based on Thunderbird so under the hood pretty
| solid, and looks and feels better mostly.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I would be fascinated to know
|
| 1) is anyone here using it at a scale of say 50+ users
|
| 2) What do the company housing this do? Paid support plans?
| [deleted]
| rcarmo wrote:
| As an old Exchange admin and e-mail product manager (back when
| telcos were selling Blackberry and ActiveSync services), I'm
| fascinated that this exists and can run on a Raspberry Pi today.
|
| Have to give it a try...
| shever73 wrote:
| This reminds me of the old Samsung Contact product that I used to
| be a reseller for. That was based on HP OpenMail as a replacement
| for Exchange.
| pvitz wrote:
| I used to run an exchange4linux server as well as another open-
| source variant before that (but forgot the name... This must have
| been 20 years ago). The biggest issue was always the Outlook
| plugin that had to be used, so if Grommunio has really managed to
| do the communication with the server natively, this seems like a
| big win.
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| Took me a while to find the protocols it actually supports:
|
| https://grommunio.com/features/architecture/
|
| I'm midway migrating my own Exchange infra to Azure, if I wasn't
| I'd give this a serious look.
| jvdvegt wrote:
| Wow, not sure I've seen a more messed-up page in Firefox on
| Android then that homepage!
| luguenth wrote:
| I'm using FF on Android as well. It seems ok to me. Except for
| the contact button and the very big menu.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| So this is an assemblage of FOSS software, presumably with a bit
| of custom glue software thrown in. The 5-user limit is if you
| want FREE-BEER support. It's not very clear.
|
| I'd like to know what they used to build it. Postfix, apparently
| (good choice). I'd like to know what other components they are
| relying on:
|
| Dovecot?
|
| Some OSS CALDAV server?
|
| Many people have tried to implement a free version of Exchange
| Server/Outlook. Despite the overall crapness of both MS products,
| those people have struggled.
|
| If these people have managed to do it using COTS FOSS components,
| I'd like to know what components they are relying on. They don't
| seem to be offering that information on their website.
| tssva wrote:
| There is a link to their GitHub page on the website.
| aucp wrote:
| Interesting...seems a fork of kopano for some things
| https://marijuanapy.com/kopano-vs-grammm-dispute-over-
| open-s...
|
| They then use upstream of jitsi onlyoffice and piler for
| video chat files and archiving.
| aucp wrote:
| And this was gramms response
| https://grommunio.com/news/statement-grommunio-to-kopano/
| l-albertovich wrote:
| I really like the concept, the only thing I'd nitpick is that I
| didn't quite dig the stack spread (C++, go, php and python) and
| that I found the grommox code very hard to follow, not due to the
| inherent complexity of the tasks but because of how inconsistent
| and messy the code is which makes it difficult to consider it an
| improvement.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Posting the GitHub profile since I didnt see it on the front page
| of their site:
|
| https://github.com/grommunio
|
| Looks to be implemented in varying programming languages.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-25 23:02 UTC)