There was a time in the recent history of DNN when offering a third party module without source code was practically sacriledge.  It violated the spirit of the open-source tradition.  Now I'm perceiving a trend (particularly with the DNN3 release) toward more and more 3rd party commercial modules being offered without source code.  If that's true, it means there is less social and/or market pressure to offer source code.

For my clients I've always recommended a policy of buying source code with every module - it's a purchasing pre-requisite.  I'd like to see what other attitudes are out there.

Please take this 30 second anonymous survey at surveymonkey.com.  Everyone can see the current survey results at any time.

Then come back here to share your opinions.

Best Regards, Karim

I've spent about $500 over the past 18 months on custom modules.  After having been burnt on Adverageous Forums, MagicGadget, and several others that are no longer supported, I think long and hard before shelling out for any DNN modules that don't offer source code.

I have been burnt too and then had to reflect the code to fix bugs.

I think that what happens is some peeps create modules for the company they work for so they cant legally sell the code but can sell the app.

Sometimes teh code is so ugly they dont want to show it to anyone.

Sometimes they feel its not worth the effort to give away the code for an extra 20 bucks.

I feel like if i had a module to sell I would offer the code but the price would be high.

But I agree, i dont buy modules anymore without code.

I don't buy modules.  I can't afford them.

i dont buy any module as well. cit must be someone kindly develop and distribute the module with no charges.

I offer source code with all of my modules because it allows other developers to help contribute to the module so everyone can share in new features. They also help to track down the actual location of bugs.

This is interesting - as I've heard different stories/comments from developers -

I've been told DNN3 is hard to code - so we are having a separation of the men from the boys theory.. 
We have people wanting something for nothing - always taking, but never giving - open source concept - how is it supported long term?
We also have people willing to pay a few dollars for a module - and wanting the source but the coder not wanting to part with source because it took so long to code.
We've seen poeple take other people's source which is free and then making minor changes and selling

I've spent close to 2,000 on modules, many many many don't work - will it stop me buying modules - probably not, but now with DNN3, the structure, guidelines, documentation, maturity- I think DNN is miles ahead to what it was 12 months ago.

For me, a non developer, source means nothing to me and I think you need to look at the type of module you have, the price of it, the expectation and decide whether it's for you.

It's going to be a mixed response for a while and I really understand why - with developers coming up with great products you rely on and then fall off the edge of the world, and you're stuck, but again, I can only  emphasise that dnn is growing and maturing and it's not the same animal as last year.  I think there is less scope for crappy coders now, and the new modules that have been released have been exceptional. 

I see both perspectives, and am interested also in other opinions..

Nina Meiers

Personally, I haven't yet paid for a DNN module, but to be fair, I'm usually content to build my own. I've built several modules for DNN 3.x, and all of them thus far have been free and source code included. I'm a huge DNN and Open Source advocate, and I think that the more examples people can look at, the more modules we'll see.

I can see why developers wouldn't want to include source code however - it really goes against the grain for a product you are trying to sell. Licensing or not, there is really nothing stopping a person from taking that code, adding a bells and whistles and a new skin, and re-selling it as their own, maybe for less money (maybe for free), thereby undercutting your profits. This is especially true when you have a module that is unique in some way, and you'd like to maintain the "secret" that makes it tick. Whether or not it is "nice" to do that is really irrelevent. That is their right, and within the licensing paradigm of open source.

Right now I have several modules, tools, code snippets and other things that being given away for free. At some point I plan on making one or more modules that will be "for sale only", and at that time, I hope that people remember all they've been given for free so far. Will I include source code? Yes. Likely it will be an option, not so much to increase my sale value, but so as to offer a less expensive version for my users who don't need it. Like Nina

Perhaps the "middle ground" is the normal separation of UI/DNN Integration and Business Logic.  A developer could code the Business Logic in a separate project, and compile that to a DLL.  Use that DLL in the UI/DNN Integration project.  The sell the UI/DNN Integration project with source, but bundle the Business Logic DLL without source.  Then the buyer has the "insurance" that they could upgrade to later DNN versions and solve any intergation issues themselves, but the developer's core logic is protected...

Robert

Hmmm, sounds creative, I like it, but thats good only if there is enough business logic to make it worth it.

None of this mean anything of course if someone can still reflect the source.  One would still have to dotfuscate their assembly.

nina wrote:

We have people wanting something for nothing - always taking, but never giving - open source concept - how is it supported long term?

derekr44 wrote:

I bought a module from Snowcovered, thinking it would be my solution.  But it wasn't, and I can't return it to the store for a refund or exchange.  I'm stuck with something I don't need.  KnowutImean?

I think this is a huge problem with software in general these days. I try not to buy anything at all software-wise until I've either had a chance to play with it first (shareware) or seen some positive reviews on it from a trusted source. Software is one of things that - unless you happen to buy it retail and the packaging still sealed (and sometimes not even then) you can't return.

I can tell you however that the flip side of coin isn't pretty either. You'd be amazed at how much complaining you have to put up with as an open source, freeware developer. DNN is a great example of this. People whine and complain all day about what is buggy, or not feature rich enough, or doesn't support what they want, etc. And sometimes people get downright nasty about it. You would think that if someone is getting something for nothing, from a person(s) who gives up huge amounts of their free time and life to create it, that people could accept the limitations, or at least be polite when asking for new features or bug fixes.

I think part of the reason some modules end up being commercial modules is because of all the frustration that goes along with the effort. But while I'm here - thanks to all the good folks who have been so supportive of DNN and all the free modules available!

Out of interest, what does a customer expect from the source - I consider myself to be a good coder with regards to commenting, regions, abstraction etc...

I am about to release the source code for my Events module, and I'm just wondering if there is anything special I need to do, or do I release it "as is"?

Do I have to put a Copyright notice at the top of every single page, like the DNN one?

Well, as part of a group of three that have spent well over 1500 dollars on modules, we've made a collective decision to not *ever* *ever* purchase a module w/o source again.  It's why we no longer use XMod, and some others.  We calculated we lost around 500 dollars because the source wasn't purchased (not available...we *always* purchased the source module), and the nightmare of redoing web sites because someone who had a module available for 2.x is now gone...it's not worth the trouble.  At least w/source available we can hire someone, or get one of us to learn to make the changes necessary.  Also, for one site (mine, the ewriters.org) one, I need to make some changes to some of the purchased modeuls (add a column in the tables for each module used on one page), so I can add a specific capability.  When people ask, 'what could users possibly want w/the source code' well, it's not understanding the marketplace, IMO.  Most of us, while perhaps not ASP.NET gurus, have *some* programming background, or need to make a change or two to a module to suit our *specific* needs. 

The needs of the marketplace *will* and always do prevail.  I believe sooner or later, the folks who are paranoid about people stealing code and reselling it (has anyone have ANY proof this has happened even once?), well, someone else will end up offering a similar module *with* source, and they'll have taken a potentially lucrative and sole market, and created competition for themselves.  We haven't used the email products we've paid over 400 dollars for, because the source isn't available.  We plan on sticking to our guns on this, because the *loss* of money is minimal when compared to the LOSS of functionality when a module is not upgraded, and we have no recourse, becasuse we have no source.

Heck, I just finished beta testing two products for purveyors, only to find out they're not supplying source.  I simply said thanks but no thanks, but wish I'd have *known* their intentions when I spent the time beta-testing the modules.  I'd have spent my time better.

BTW, I click on the survey link above and get a 'document contains no data' error.  I think Scott has an excellent idea.  He charges a certain amount a year, and supplies whatever modules he thinks are useful.  I bet his business model will attract a lot of customers because his prices are reasonable, *and* he provides source.  Hey, this is just one opinion.  I understand that every purveyor has the right to do whatever they want w/their work.  It *is* their work after all.  On the other side, us purchasers can *also* speak w/our wallets.  I suggest we do this, based on my experience, and it's not even the loss of wasted money (though over 500 bucks is not chicken feed to most of us)...it's the loss of functionality and time spent having to do workarounds when new versions of DNN are supplied.  Currently, there are absolutely NO standards demanded by the websites that *sell* the modules either.  When we purchase modules, we can't even tell where the heck they are in the list!

The survey site was acting strange this morning, try the links again, but then Refresh the page and it should come up.

I'm in 95% agreement with you.  The more experience you get with DNN operationally, the more you come to realize that purchasing without source is folly.  All of the modules I've purchased this way have bourne bad fruit.

>>The needs of the marketplace *will* and always do prevail.  I believe sooner or later

The problem is that it's often later.  The marketplace is often less efficient at negative feedback.  If you look at snowcovered and see that week after week xmod is the top seller, and then you see that xmod doesn't offer source, you may come away with the feeling that source code availability isn't a factor. 

Xmod fills a definite need.  I'm a programmer and capable of developing my own solutions, but I'd love to be able to offer xmod on the sites I support so that users could come up with their own solutions for simpler problems.  For sites operating without developer support it's probably a boon.

But there is no way to gauge how much better their sales might be if they had offered source code - this applies to all commercial modules.  And there is no way to profile the sites that are buying without source - maybe they're mostly trivial-intensity sites where risk management is not a high concern.  Developers might look at xmod, see that offering source-code is not mandatory to success and make decisions accordingly.  But perhaps that is just a singular case where a solution to a desparate need is overcoming the risk concern for a certain sub-population of purchasers.  Your results may vary.

Thus the survey.  The results so far are interesting. (refresh if the links are problematic)