DotNetNuke

Re: Open source guarantee?

iwonder — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:41:48 GMT

Cheers and Happy Holidays to all...

Re: Open source guarantee?

RLyda — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:05:34 GMT

Konk, I think the best reassurance you can take is that while the PMI has the rights to change the license of any future DNN versions, including taking new development commercial... So do YOU! And so does the rest of the community! It's just that no one but PMI could call their next version DNN...

If, big if, PMI decided to try paid stuff again, I think you'd find the same BIG community backlash. And I'm fairly certain that some real good members of the community would in fact start a new Open Source/Free project, if PMI stuck to the paid attempt this time... So Open Source/Free development would continue...

What would you lose, the rights to use the name DotNetNuke, that's all. "A rose by any other name..."

Given the considerable backlash last time, a more probable for-profit scheme for PMI would be a parallel project. Few would fault Shaun for making money the same way many others do: extensions, derivations, & service! This would also let PMI keep the volunteer contributions flowing into the DNN codebase--reducing their costs for ongoing development of the "paid" version... To say "DNN is mine, pay up or leave" just wouldn't be in the community interest or good business sense that Shaun appears to have.

Re: Open source guarantee?

RLyda — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:52:32 GMT

Touche'! Nice point on the different versions being different IP works...

BUT, one CAN in fact structure a license that allows the use of unknown future works--just look at Microsoft's "maintenance" packages, look at several Core Team member's personal "subscription" sites, etc... "Buy today and you'll get the next version free as well..." Big companies ROUTINELY buy software with guarantees for today AND the next few years--it's called budgetting & planning...

I would agree that the current license provides all that anyone could ask for with the current version! (HEARTY THANKS, Core Team!) But Konk's question was about the next version, and the one after that... Yeah, I think that's really far reaching FUD, but it is still somewhat valid....and SIMPLE to squash definitively with a forward looking license.

Re: Open source guarantee?

mrswoop — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:13:27 GMT

RLyda wrote:

My intention was to add FACTS that might clarify/support Konk's original question...

If Shaun really means "free forever" then what's the objection to giving that the legal weight of inclusion in the license??? This would _eliminate_ any FUD.

The "fact" is that this is not possible to do. The software you currently have provides you all the protection you need to use it freely and in perpetuity. It is not legally possible for that license to ensure protection for future versions ( which are different "works" in the eyes of the law ).

Our intention ( backed by years of demonstrated performance and 000's of man hours of work ) is to produce an amazing and free application framework for everyone... including the doubters.

Re: Open source guarantee?

RLyda — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:35:09 GMT

My intention was not to fuel any attacks upon Shaun or the Core Team. My intention was to add FACTS that might clarify/support Konk's original question (since each new release has brought thousands of new users and most have NOT bought the book).

I do think that Shaun's comments since 2003, especially those of the last year, should carry more weight with the community. That should go toward _reducing_ any FUD. But those comments are just that--COMMENTS, not LICENSE. In fact most attorneys would call them "hearsay" or "speculation" worthy of a disclaimer if used in any financial statements/prospectus...

If Shaun really means "free forever" then what's the objection to giving that the legal weight of inclusion in the license??? This would _eliminate_ any FUD.

Active resistance to "perpetual" language in the license from "Perpertual" Motion Interactive Systems seems not only ironic--but given the past attempt to charge fees, seems like there _could_ be a business interest being protected after all... Anyone for conspiracy theories with that FUD?

Re: Open source guarantee?

mrswoop — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:26:07 GMT

Konk wrote:

So I say let the community know where DNN is headed.

I've lost track of the number of times I personally ( much less Shaun or the rest of the core team collectively ) has answered this question. I've not even read the entire thread, but I'm sure I know it by heart and trust that my cohorts have answered with their usual flair, honesty and incredible patience. Truth is... there will always be doubters. I rather enjoy continuing to prove them wrong.

Re: Open source guarantee?

J7Mitch — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 04:07:35 GMT

chitine wrote:

At first glance, I cant help but agree that some of the doubters posting in this forum are indeed full of FUD (fear uncertainty & doubt)

And now after seeing some of the references to three year old posts "what-ifs" & thinly-veiled sarcasm, I cant help but thinking these same posters are also full of Speculation Hypotheticals Irrationality and Tactlessness.

Now that's funny. I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

Re: Open source guarantee?

jbrinkman — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:41:18 GMT

Konk,

Somehow I think you missed whole portions of this thread. You do not need to charge licensing fees for software in order to derive business value or even to create revenue and wealth. All of this is attainable even while adhering to the highest OS ideals. One only needs to look around at the many successful OS platforms to see that not only is it possible, but highly likely for any project which gains a significant enough following. So while the personal goals may be to put food on the table, that does not mean that you have to eventually become a commercial product to achieve this goal.

Re: Open source guarantee?

keithstone — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 03:25:04 GMT

chitine wrote:

And now after seeing some of the references to three year old posts "what-ifs" & thinly-veiled sarcasm, I cant help but thinking these same posters are also full of Speculation Hypotheticals Irrationality and Tactlessness.

I take offense at that. I at no time attempted to veil my sarcasm. I'm not Barbara Eden. I don't even have a conceal and carry permit for my sarcasm. It's always pointed, and in plain view. Sarcasm Here Is Tactless, if you get my drift.

Re: Open source guarantee?

Konk — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:21:07 GMT

After reading what transpired with IBSW, this discussion does make sense. Its better to take a proactive stand rather than react later.

From a business perspective, I can see how a free-now charge-later model can lead to better long term profitability. However, the ethical approach and one that goes against all business sense would be to state up front the ultimate goals.

To say or to pretend that such thoughts do not exist convinces no one especially when there is nothing in writing. Clearly, there is precedence as witnessed in the IBSW link. Even though the subscription model was withdrawn immediately, still, the intent and attempt existed.

There are hundreds of projects listed on http://www.cmsmatrix.org/ and most of them have evolved from a community to commercial model. So I say let the community know where DNN is headed.

Re: Open source guarantee?

chitine — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:41:17 GMT

At first glance, I cant help but agree that some of the doubters posting in this forum are indeed full of FUD (fear uncertainty & doubt)

And now after seeing some of the references to three year old posts "what-ifs" & thinly-veiled sarcasm, I cant help but thinking these same posters are also full of Speculation Hypotheticals Irrationality and Tactlessness.

Re: Open source guarantee?

sbwalker — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:29:38 GMT

Ahhh... when you said "a few versions ago" I was thinking you were referring to a recent incident ( there have been 35 releases since then ). You are referring to the infamous "subscription" model from Feb 2003 - nearly 3 years ago ( I went into detail about this in the DNN Book ). At that point in time the product was called "IBuySpy Workshop" ( IBSW ) - DotNetNuke had not even been conceived - and there were only 5000 registered users. I was working on the project alone ( there was no Core Team ) and the BSD license had not yet been adopted. And it is important to note that the "subscription" model was immediately cancelled:

http://www.asp.net/Forums/retired/ShowPost.aspx?tabindex=1&PostID=157019

Re: Open source guarantee?

keithstone — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:04 GMT

sbwalker wrote:

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I can not recall ever talking about a "paid" model. If you could point me to the "community tirade" you refer to, perhaps it would refresh my memory.

I think the reference is to the "subscription model" you refer to on page 8, paragraph 3, of the Professional DotNetNuke ASP.Net Portals book.

Now let's get back to all the wide speculation, that was much more fun, ;-)

Re: Open source guarantee?

hooligannes97 — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:38:57 GMT

slope wrote:
sbwalker wrote:

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I can not recall ever talking about a "paid" model. If you could point me to the "community tirade" you refer to, perhaps it would refresh my memory.

Well taken out of memory I belive this was in the early days of Dnn. Maybe even before version 2.0. I am on a handhald right now without my bookmarks, but I will sure post the link to the "community tirade" as soon as I get home. I am fairly sure you started it, and that you later made an appology to the community at large, promising no such things for the future.

As I have stated allready we have gotten letters from a large legal advisor saying the BSD can change backwardly. Meaning any changes to the licensing model will have to be made for future releases. I choose to follow this advise, to me it seems like a risk factor I can handle.

If others feels different, get some proper legal advise, make sure you got it in writing and take em to court if it don't hold up

I do not know if membership model = paid model, but before I have to bite my tong, let us go back in time http://www.asp.net/Forums/retired/ShowPost.aspx?tabindex=1&PostID=155889 makes for some interestring reading.

Re: Open source guarantee?

slope — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:17:33 GMT

sbwalker wrote:

Maybe my memory is failing me, but I can not recall ever talking about a "paid" model. If you could point me to the "community tirade" you refer to, perhaps it would refresh my memory.

Well taken out of memory I belive this was in the early days of Dnn. Maybe even before version 2.0. I am on a handhald right now without my bookmarks, but I will sure post the link to the "community tirade" as soon as I get home. I am fairly sure you started it, and that you later made an appology to the community at large, promising no such things for the future.

As I have stated allready we have gotten letters from a large legal advisor saying the BSD can change backwardly. Meaning any changes to the licensing model will have to be made for future releases. I choose to follow this advise, to me it seems like a risk factor I can handle.

If others feels different, get some proper legal advise, make sure you got it in writing and take em to court if it don't hold up