help.net


Musing on .Net

News





hit counters




Open source CMS

Technorati

My blog

Irish blogs

Locations of visitors to this page Get Chitika eMiniMalls

.Net useful

Blogs I read

PocketPC

SQL

Usability

Community:Forums some clarification

My previous post/rant about Community:Forums got the expected reaction, and I entered in an intense and very interesting debate on IM with Rob Howard, one of Telligent founders.

Thanks Rob for the chat, even if we are still in disagreement on some points. I still think, and I am not the only one, that you can't snap your fingers and decide to take an important piece of community development like the forums, and make profit with this, whatever the good and valid excuses you gave me.

From Rob:

We're actually in the process of getting back to Open Source, i.e. allowing external contributions. We've spent the past 4 months with external check-in closed only because we've tried to keep the team small and focused. The plan is to move to a model of a few people that have check-in rights -- we're in the process now of working with those individuals -- similar to how many other large OSS projects are run.

Scott's comment about profitability is not completely accurate in this case. There is both a free version and a commercial version available. The commercial version is $129 and includes forums, blogs, and a photo gallery. Given that we have 6 fulltime people (who we pay) working on the project we would have to sell a lot of the $129 commercial licenses to make a profit and that's just not happening nor did we expect it to.

We actually decided to pursue this route of product licensing based on how we saw the ABM (anything but Microsoft) crowd moving. MySql, PHP Nuke, and many Linux distros have moved to a similar model - whereas there is a time/money continium and they offer both a free and a commercial version of their products.

We will always have a free version available.

However, for people that choose to use the applications commercially we do hope they choose to purchase a commercial license. This helps us develop, maintain, and continue building these solutions.

Our proof of this effort cannot be demonstrated overnight and the skepticism with our intensions is completely fair; we can't prove them otherwise until we have more history to hold up as evidence.

If you want to learn more about what we're doing -- the best place is http://www.communityserver.org. We've done several postings there that discuss our long term plans and goals for these projects.

As for our Whidbey plans, as many people know I used the Forums as my testbed for coming up with Whidbey features such as Membership, Roles, Personalization, Skins, Providers, and many other core ASP.NET 2.0 features. Needless to say, Community Server will have Whidbey capabilities and integration second-to-none <g>. In fact, in our 1.0 release of Community Server we will have a back-ported Membership, Roles, and Personalization system that is forward compatible with Whidbey.

If anyone wants to chat about any of this offline with me, just drop me a note at rhoward@telligentsystems.com.

I also fully agree with Scott Galloway when he say:

"... The saddest thing is that this again reinforces the Java / Open Source world's view of the .NET community - that as soon as anything seems vaguely profitable then 'community be damned' and profit takes over... "

Jeff has also developed a free forums tool called Popforums and I will have a look at it for my next project. Because not only is free but it has been cleverly developed on a more simple basis than Community:Forums which could be a bit 'heavy weight' for some small projects.

I like competition :-)

Posted: Sep 28 2004, 09:32 PM by help.net | with 19 comment(s)
Filed under:

Comments

Wallym said:

Telligent is allowed to make money. Why should software be free? What's wrong with making money? The economic system designed by Lenen and Marx didn't seem to work very well..........
# September 28, 2004 6:48 PM

Jeff said:

I don't think it's a matter of being offended by capitalism like some of the open-source nuts are. I think it's the idea that people were openly contributing to it, and now someone is going to sell it.

My forum is not strictly open source, as I retain the copyright in my license and require money if you want to use it without the copyright notice. That's probably a fair trade considering it's one guy's product.

I've always felt that forum was needlessly complex and difficult to modify. And for something that's supposed to be representative of a "best practice" of sorts, it leaves a lot to be desired. I have enormous respect for Rob Howard, I really do, but I think complexity without clear pay-off is bad.
# September 28, 2004 11:22 PM

Jeff said:

I don't think it's a matter of being offended by capitalism like some of the open-source nuts are. I think it's the idea that people were openly contributing to it, and now someone is going to sell it.

My forum is not strictly open source, as I retain the copyright in my license and require money if you want to use it without the copyright notice. That's probably a fair trade considering it's one guy's product.

I've always felt that forum was needlessly complex and difficult to modify. And for something that's supposed to be representative of a "best practice" of sorts, it leaves a lot to be desired. I have enormous respect for Rob Howard, I really do, but I think complexity without clear pay-off is bad.
# September 28, 2004 11:24 PM

Jeff said:

Sorry about the double post... (speaking of complex software that doesn't work half the time)
# September 28, 2004 11:25 PM

TrackBack said:

# September 29, 2004 1:21 AM

Scott Galloway said:

Speaking to Rob about this, I feel I personally misjudged their motives and should respond to my own comment. I think much of the problem we as Microsoft technology focussed developers have is that there just isn't a strong open source / community movement such as exists in the Java / Linux world. I think there's various reasons for this - much of it to do with perception / backgroups (e.g., ASP wasn't as hard to learn as say, PERL - many open source efforts derive out of 'learning' projects...). Another factor in this is the historically fairly weak MS communities - which are now on the rise - to develop and continue open source projects you often need help and support - something which communities provide... If Telligent can provide some impetus in driving forward these 3 projects and provide guidance as to the general implementation and direction of them then that's great and we should as a commuity support that effort - I know I intend to. Oh, and support doesn't mean using a product then bitching about it - we can all write code...if ypou have a problem with open source products, the idea is to fix the problem and submit it for everyone else to use. I've participated in some Java open source projects in the past and I have to say, it's a huge amount of fun and well as being a great learning tool!
# September 29, 2004 5:32 AM

TrackBack said:

Community:Forums - They're not GPL'd and they never were
# September 29, 2004 6:46 AM

Rolando said:

Paschal, Alex and others (see comments in their posts) are questioning Telligent decision to sell Community:Forums as a comercial product.

I would like to take Telligent side in this discusion.

http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/dotnetrolando/archive/2004/09/29/27133.aspx
# September 29, 2004 11:49 AM

Scott Galloway said:

Who said they *were* GPL? Also it's not as if GPL is not the only form of Open Source license around - far from it! For instance, WTL (the Microsoft C++ template library) is licensed under the Common Public License on Sourceforge http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php . Of course it's up to the guys at Telligent to determine which licensing model they want to support; personally, I think they *should* support some for of license which prevents people charging for commercial products based on the source wihout authorisation & inclusion of the original license since that essentially rips off all the contributors to the original projects - ASP.NET Forums 2.0 was, remember contributed to by a number of non-MS developers...but that's just me.
# September 29, 2004 12:07 PM

Scott Galloway said:

Who said they *were* GPL? Also it's not as if GPL is not the only form of Open Source license around - far from it! For instance, WTL (the Microsoft C++ template library) is licensed under the Common Public License on Sourceforge http://opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php . Of course it's up to the guys at Telligent to determine which licensing model they want to support; personally, I think they *should* support some for of license which prevents people charging for commercial products based on the source wihout authorisation & inclusion of the original license since that essentially rips off all the contributors to the original projects - ASP.NET Forums 2.0 was, remember contributed to by a number of non-MS developers...but that's just me.
# September 29, 2004 12:13 PM

Frans Bouma said:

So who's the first to post this to Slashdot? :)

Please, people, READ something about copyright law. Unless Rob has copyright on all the code, he will get trouble when the code is sold as a package, i.e.: he will then sell stuff he doesn't own, something which CAN turn out to be the worst thing a company can possibly do.

So, the simple question is: DOES Telligent have the copyright of the code of asp.net forums and if not, do they have permission from the authors to sell the code? (f.e. when the code is BSD licensed).

If it doesn't have a license, it means NOTHING is allowed, not even redistribution. And before someone asks: why is this important? if everyone starts selling other peoples work without permission, we'll kill our own profession. As a persion who has suffered from code theft in a similar fashion in the past, it is very important this issue is solved and it's not solved by simply saying "they can do that" or "they have the right to do so because ..." and other BULLSHIT I've read in the reactions and blogs about this topic.
# September 29, 2004 12:37 PM

Rob Howard said:

> DOES Telligent have the copyright of the code
> of asp.net forums

Excellent point! Yes, this is something we have taken care of.
# September 29, 2004 1:02 PM

AndrewSeven said:

I think I agree with Jeff and Frans

Scott's cv mentions the origins.
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/ScottMitchell.shtml

I don't know what kinds of licenses there have been on the various versions, but the only people I have heard of (there may be many others, I dont know) working on it is Scott, Rob and the Asp.Net team.

I have no idea who is right, but MS has lots of lawers and even if we come to a consensus about feeling it is the legal situation that will hold up.

The flip side is that communities are more about a consensus of perception than truth or legality.



# September 29, 2004 1:17 PM

Rob Howard said:

This is a little bit of a paper-tiger...

Andrew's point is accurate:
> consensus of perception

We have a free version that comes with all the source code. There are 2 differences between the free version and the commercial version:
1. The commercial version comes with 30 days of support
2. The commercial version doesn't require the display of a 'powered by' logo at the bottom of every page.

The commercial version costs $129 (U.S.). We have retained, acquired, or have been granted all rights to the code.

We're not back to true OSS yet. We're trying to get there, but frankly there is a lot of organizational work to be done on our end to make that work again.

If you want to talk about hijacking, talk about Lucene (who we were considering using). We are not doing that -- we include ALL of the source in all versions.

We're trying to find the balance between paying bills and taking these applications to the next level -- somehow that seems to be getting lost in all of this :(
# September 29, 2004 2:01 PM

Rolando said:

Frans commented: "If it doesn't have a license, it means NOTHING is allowed, not even redistribution." I used to think the opposite but since he's a comercial software author he should know about this legal/copyright stuff. Maybe Rob can help with this subject and tell us if the Forums source is under a License. then we can can go on with the discussion of what could be done with the source code.
# September 29, 2004 2:10 PM

Rob Howard said:

> tell us if the Forums source is under a License
Yes. Originally it was the Microsoft Starter Kit license, now it is under a nearly identical license for the free version and a separate commercial license for the commercial version.
# September 29, 2004 2:23 PM

Rob Howard said:

> tell us if the Forums source is under a License
Yes. Originally it was the Microsoft Starter Kit license, now it is under a nearly identical license for the free version and a separate commercial license for the commercial version.
# September 29, 2004 2:25 PM

TrackBack said:

# September 30, 2004 9:23 AM

Eric Newton said:

I have to agree with Jeff on the complexity of setting up .Text, which I assume is the same for the CS:Blogs...

And the asp.net forums for the most part employed an interesting way to do things, but it always felt like a hack to me.

I dont really wanna attack anybody on the issue of making money, I believe if you like the software, you should at least contribute a little for the continued developement of it... I consider it to be a project that I dont have to bug-fix, and when a newer release is made, I try to install it.

Sure, there were a few problems, but hey, even Microsoft Office had some problems...
# October 17, 2004 4:15 PM