Look at the forum I link to and you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here.:-(
If you look at the forum I link to you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here.:-(
Thanks for this explanation! If you look at the forum I link to you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here.:-(
David, Matt Asay has acknowledged in the meantime that many (probably most) partners have signed a contract in which they agree not to support the OSS version of his product.
The open version has been abandoned by the developers and consultants...
Luckily that's not the case. The problem is that the only OSI compliant source Alfresco is publishing is an unstable development version.
So IMHO Alfresco's "open source" tag is just a marketing gag. But that's another topic.
What? Can't afford the developemnt talent to fork developement?
Yes I can afford to do so. Know what: We are already working on the fork. Fortunately there are a lot of open source developers who'll help and see their business opportunity in service rather than software. There'll be a stable community version soon that may be supported by everyone! (Just not the poor Alfresco partner's but that's their problem, not ours.:-D)
Suddenly that closed-source product doesn't seem like such a bad deal now.
Oh yes it does! And it'll look a lot worse once we've done our job and made Alfresco what it's now only called: open source.:-D
So yes, it's all just about business: Those who think that they can still sell code rather than service have not understood the economics of open source. They'll always loose in the long run. Bet's are on for Alfresco.
LostCluster, you are right, if you want to make money with it, it's ok to pay for it. Open source != free. Agreed!
Why do you want an OSI compliant product: In our case principally to avoid vendor lock-in. No company is forced put the "open source" label to their product.
So if you get an OSI compliant product that you have to pay for and that's supported, then as a customer, you're happy to pay for it. (I think that's Red Hats case.)
In this case you're forced to buy a proprietary product from an "open source" company if you want support...
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the forum I link to and you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here. :-(
If you look at the forum I link to you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here. :-(
Thanks for this explanation! If you look at the forum I link to you'll see that I am aware that partners are themselves deciding to renounce to rights they had previously gained under GPL. It is unfortunate that I seem to have made a different impression here. :-(
David, Matt Asay has acknowledged in the meantime that many (probably most) partners have signed a contract in which they agree not to support the OSS version of his product.
The open version has been abandoned by the developers and consultants...
Luckily that's not the case. The problem is that the only OSI compliant source Alfresco is publishing is an unstable development version.
So IMHO Alfresco's "open source" tag is just a marketing gag. But that's another topic.
What? Can't afford the developemnt talent to fork developement?
Yes I can afford to do so. Know what: We are already working on the fork. Fortunately there are a lot of open source developers who'll help and see their business opportunity in service rather than software. There'll be a stable community version soon that may be supported by everyone! (Just not the poor Alfresco partner's but that's their problem, not ours. :-D)
Suddenly that closed-source product doesn't seem like such a bad deal now.
Oh yes it does! And it'll look a lot worse once we've done our job and made Alfresco what it's now only called: open source. :-D
So yes, it's all just about business: Those who think that they can still sell code rather than service have not understood the economics of open source. They'll always loose in the long run. Bet's are on for Alfresco.
LostCluster, you are right, if you want to make money with it, it's ok to pay for it. Open source != free. Agreed!
Why do you want an OSI compliant product: In our case principally to avoid vendor lock-in. No company is forced put the "open source" label to their product.
So if you get an OSI compliant product that you have to pay for and that's supported, then as a customer, you're happy to pay for it. (I think that's Red Hats case.)
In this case you're forced to buy a proprietary product from an "open source" company if you want support...