Last post May 04, 2005 05:37 PM by bradels
May 02, 2005 08:04 AM|matchbx27|LINK
I'm curious to know what is the communities opinion on modules that have seem to have been abandoned by the developer. When I comes to free modules this really isn't an issue, make every effort to contact the developer prior to releasing the module and
when you do release it send them a copy of your work.
But what about modules for sale. I, like several others have purchased Calendar Pro 2.5 on snowcovered. All attempts to contact the developer have failed (both through snowcovered and posting to the forum located on the developers site). The developers
forum is moderated and has not had a new post since February of this year.
I realize we are bound by the License Agreement, which is fairly rigid. But for those of us who would like to see this module upgraded to support DNN 3.0.13 what path are we to take?
May 02, 2005 08:33 AM|IcthusTech|LINK
I too have purchased several licenses of Calendar Pro. I believe we are SOL when it comes to an upgrade to 3.x. If you have the source you can always pay someone to upgrade the product.
The sad thing to me is the fact that Snowcovered is still selling this module for 2.1.2 when the developer is clearly AWOL.
May 02, 2005 09:15 AM|matchbx27|LINK
I can probably do the upgrade myself, but what about everyone else whose purchased this module..... snowcovered should pull this module..
Lessoned learned.. I'll never purchase another module without asking atleast one question to make sure the developer responds in a timly manner.
May 02, 2005 10:36 AM|thecrispy1|LINK
I am not sure it is the duty of snow to see if the people selling those modules are still active. If feedback is provided to snowcovered and it is fair they usually do the right thing. Without feedback prior to this, how would they know?
This was talked about in another thread for a different module, but this is the reason many people want sourcecode. Also, to be honest, the price of these modules you should not expect the developers to be around forever and support the product.
May 02, 2005 11:12 AM|RLyda|LINK
Ethics <> Legality.
That said, here's my two cents: We purchased the code to cover just such possibilities. It sucks to be unable to PAY the developer more money to provide a meaningful upgrade to his product, and have to fit this into our internal development schedule.
But again since we're often dealing with individuals instead of large firms we must acknowledge the possibility that the individual may 1) get hit by a bus, 2) lose interest, or 3) try to keep a wife and family happy...
You generally buy a piece of software for your own use, open source or not. So ethically as long as you continue to enjoy it within those common expectations, do with it what you will...
Have I ever felt bad or been sued for ripping a nice chart out of a magazine I purchased and tacking it to my workbench--no! The publisher made it available for whatever personal use I might desire....again the expectation being PERSONAL. Now if one started
photocopying the articles and selling them to others I would have ethical and legal issues come to mind...
Now if you wanted to LEARN from the code, and use that in a new product for sale to others, well it becomes trickier. I would tend to say that if it feels questionable, don't do it. You may want to speak to the original developer and ask him about it.
But ultimately ask yourself: How many lines of code/ideas would I not mind another copying before I think they're just stealling my work! That's an ethically subjective area, and it would probably be best to come back to the legalities of fair use percentages...
May 02, 2005 01:28 PM|Nocturnal|LINK
May 04, 2005 06:06 AM|bradels|LINK
May 04, 2005 08:39 AM|AnyUserNameWillDo|LINK
I am very interested in this thread as I am about to release my first public module in the next few days. One of the concerns that has been causing a lot of uneasyness is the release of my source code with my PA.
Now, I know myself I am going to continue to support this product for at least a year after its release, and just being the type of guy that I am, I will always support people even after dates. I could prove that if needed, however, it doesn't really matter
because for most people that's probably not worth all that research for something like my module. The source code seems to be the security.
My concerns about releasing source code are exactly that, what if someone takes it, modifies it, and trys to redistribute. Besides a copyright, can I protect that in my license agreement? Is there a standard license agreement that exists that says, "You
can modify the source code for your own purposes, but may not redistrubute under your name when a majority of code belongs to me (the developer)." This is the biggest holdup to me releasing my module. But it seems you may know the answer to that.
If you can offer any advice that would be greatly appreciated.
May 04, 2005 09:13 AM|RLyda|LINK
Yes, your license can say whatever you like! Keep it simple and businesses won't feel the need to pay an outside attorney to review it (and possibly not purchase)...
If you are looking for license excerpts, try looking at the licenses of some of the other modules out there. You can also look at any number of good license advocate sites (DNN didn't start their license from scratch either...). Although they state their
focus is not software, check out CreativeCommons. They have a good set of "ala cart" use cases that you might consider...
Overall, plagerism is plagerism! Fair Use laws do vary from country to country, but there are international treaties that make them somewhat uniform in the developed nations. These laws do spell out what percentage of one's work can be used in another's.
Think back to school: teachers encourage the use of quotes with proper attribution and supporting materials, but will FLUNK you for taking a body of work in total or claiming someone else's work as your own... Although they may not use the "fair use" term,
it is often a child's introduction to the concept and consequences.
May 04, 2005 05:37 PM|bradels|LINK