DotNetNuke

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

palmernet — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:38:05 GMT

So how can me we make sure users are informed?

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

DBuckner — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 02:29:36 GMT

ikamiksok wrote:

One similar thread someone noted was modules that you buy as open source but then later discover they are actually only 90% open source and have a non open component. That's kinda bugged me of late.

I hear you there!

Dave

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

ikamiksok — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:33:18 GMT

One similar thread someone noted was modules that you buy as open source but then later discover they are actually only 90% open source and have a non open component. That's kinda bugged me of late. I only buy pure open source modules now and also only buy ones from core\major developers. I too have spent a lot of money on modules (it's fun).

To me, Scott's site with the subscription model is the absolute best way to go for the buyer. The first site other than this I check every day is Scott's. His modules are constantly updated, there is always new content, ppl post their bugs & problems and so I know that I am buying solid code.

Jason

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

codegalaxy — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:40:10 GMT

palmer - so what would be needed for a third party to hold that code ? In your opinion

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

palmernet — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:03:42 GMT

SchelianHP wrote:
I must write an answer to your post.

Let's keep this to a discussion about how we developers can best meet the needs of the DNN community.

We have made a decision only to implement modules where the source code is available, although we are willing to accept a third party to hold on to the code and only to release it in the event of the supplier failing to support the module. This will mean we can still have great solution's like those from UCanUse and Bring2Mind, provided we can negotiate a third party to hold onto the code.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

SchelianHP — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:52:36 GMT

Mike,
I'm sure that you have knew, that I must write an answer to your post.

I'm sorry, but I must correct you.

mikeh36 wrote:
While they weren't charging for it

I don't use any code while I have charged for it.

mikeh36 wrote:
the code it was still strongly based on Steve's module

Did you see the code, so that you can say that the code was still strongly based on Steves module, the design and the functions are nearly the same, that is correct.

mikeh36 wrote:
and broke the source agreement.

I did nothing against the source agreement. The module has included a standard bsd license as each other dnn module.

mikeh36 wrote:
not even sure if it was out of beta yet

DNNDownload has been downloaded over 2200 times and most of the people use the module.

mikeh36 wrote:
It caused quite an uproar here on the boards but eventually the two of them worked out some sort of an arrangement..

I call something like this a discussion, and there where a lot of different opinions from different people in that threat.

mikeh36 wrote:
But in reality, the most likely wasn't a lot Steve could do about this variation of his mod and it being distributed (and maybe sold) if the other person decided to tell him to stuff it.

I am surprised that you know what was the reality.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

palmernet — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:20:10 GMT

mikeh36 wrote:
there are two sides to every coin

Escrow is an industry standard way of dealing with this. The problem is most escrow services cost more that what people are charging for their modules. If we could find some secure cheap reliable third party who could hold onto source code, then the concerns of my organisation would be met.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

mikeh36 — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:56:52 GMT

Like others have said, there are two sides to every coin. I generally will buy the source if it's available (the only one I haven't yet is Active Forums and that's because Will has been very active since the day I found out about his forum) but I can also understand someone not wanting to release their source code. Back in the early DNN3 days (not even sure if it was out of beta yet) there was a situation where someone released their own version of Steve Fabian's Repository. While they weren't charging for it and had made some significant changes to the code it was still strongly based on Steve's module and broke the source agreement. It caused quite an uproar here on the boards but eventually the two of them worked out some sort of an arrangement. But in reality, the most likely wasn't a lot Steve could do about this variation of his mod and it being distributed (and maybe sold) if the other person decided to tell him to stuff it.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

SchelianHP — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:35 GMT

I agree,
but not all will do that,
Have a look here
http://forums.asp.net/893456/ShowPost.aspx

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

palmernet — Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:14:50 GMT

donker wrote:
My solution to the source code issue is analogous to what you see elsewhere in the SW industry: you sell the source for several orders of magnitude.

Talking of learning from the SW industry, module providers who sell modules without the source code should probably make sure the latest version of the source is stored by some escrow service. This would greatly reduce the risk of DNN users getting landed with dead end products.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

phebous — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:59:50 GMT

Let face it, you can only keep an honest person honest. A thief will always try to rob you blind. The trick is to make is difficult enough to have the thief go elsewhere.

Phebous...

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

rodneyjoyce — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:28:18 GMT

Actually - to add to the source debate - as mentioned on another thread somewhere it really isn't that hard to reflect the souce from an assembly anyway...

So if a person is going to rip you off there's is not much you can do - lets hope the community work as a team to dissuade this approach and spot it.

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

donker — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 22:17:35 GMT

It seems an everlasting/returning debate when it concerns the tension between open source and commercial development. I just want to chip in because I've given this stuff a lot of thought lately. My problem is that selling source for 10% more will obviously mean that everyone will uy your module with source. However, it makes it pointless to try to protect your code with some kind of copy protection. After all, any halfbaked programmer could take it out. So, if we wish to have a copy protection we focus on selling PA's.
Now ... if we wish DNN to become a success in business environments, module developers will have to become 'professional'. With that I mean dedicated to support and development of their product and staying in tune with DNN coding standards. This, in all probablility means full-time DNN module development (like me). For these people to survive, they need to ask 'real prices' for their work. It's not for an extra pint of beer, but for bread, rent, etc. This also means protecting your work. But we just learned that that means you cannot sell the source for 10% more.
My solution to the source code issue is analogous to what you see elsewhere in the SW industry: you sell the source for several orders of magnitude. There are quite a few products that sell for lets say 150 $, but that ask for 3000 $ for an 'enterprise version' where you get the source. I don't ask that much, but the model is clear: you can make the source available to those customers that use your work in 'mission critical environments'.
My 2cts

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

RAGolko — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:59:43 GMT

I can also see both sides of the coin. On the side of those who purchase modules to enhance and expand DNN functionality, DNN is an open source project, so some people feel that source code should be available for the modules people develop. DNN changes rapidly and people don't want to spend money on modules that may not work on a future version of DNN.

The other side of the coin is with the developers. As a developer of custom modules, I can tell you that it takes a considerable amount of time and effort to develop a module that offers substantial functionality. It can literally take a couple months or more to develop a truly substantial module. To nearly give away the source code for $20 to $50 is really not worth the risk of someone taking that source code and producing their own products.

I buy products without source code. I had to replace my MagicChat module for another html-based chat because a site I worked on had to have chat for government access and they were prohibited from using any java-based chat. The only chat that fit the bill in terms of functionality and security was CuteChat. Did I get source code with it? No. Not a chance. In fact I can't even use it on all the portals in my DNN installation -- it's licensed to one domain and it cost quite a bit. Why did I buy it? Because it worked for what I needed at the moment. Am I at risk? Yes. If the company that produces that software goes out of business, I can NEVER change the license even if the company I am hosting the site for goes out of business. I wouldn't be able to change the domain license.

The point is I bought the software for the need at hand in the current platform.

There are people who hijack code. There are people who will only modify the code for their current application. There are people who buy code to learn how to code. Developers simply have to determine if the risk is worth offering their source code, and I think that should remain the developer's choice just as it is up to those who buy the software whether they want to buy it without source code or not.

The major problem has yet to be addressed. The only reason previously purchased modules do not work on the new DNN platforms is because DNN did not make their upgrades backward compatible. I'm not faulting the Core team any more than I'm faulting people who won't buy modules without source, or any more than I'm faulting developers who won't sell their source.

If DNN 4 comes out in several months where it is totally compatible with ASPNet 2, there is a good chance that most of the currently marketed modules will break. That will cause a whole new wave of module RE-development. The developers who left the market will not be upgrading their modules and people who bought them will either have to stay at the DNN 3 level or find another compatible module -- unless DNN 4 is backward-compatible with DNN 3.

Maybe backward-compatibility should be looked at a little closer for the sake of those who invest considerably in custom modules, rather than expecting custom module developers to divulge their intellectual property they may have spent months developing.

We are toying with a third solution to the problem which protects both the developers and the purchasers. We think it is an IDEAL solution But we can't divulge that yet because someone might just hijack it! Stay tuned...

Re: Trends in source code availability for commercial modules

rodneyjoyce — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 21:22:26 GMT

Here's the link to the new thread btw - will try to stick to the topic in each one ;)
http://forums.asp.net/943682/ShowPost.aspx#943682