Andrew Eddie wrote:
Nice, what part of Oz?
The east coast. Dad was full time Army and I was a Contract Oracle Developer for 10 years, so between the two of them I have moved around Aus 34 times. Perth and Tas are pretty much the only places I haven't lived at least once.
Andrew Eddie wrote:
On the "left with a dead encoded product" - I've worked in Gov't and know how it works. That would have been part of their product evaluation. If they didn't have a deal whereby the source was held in escrow in the event the vendor went under (for whatever reason, and it happens), then I'd suggest they took a fair risk.lol Drupal was just the first cms name that came to mind.
And if they choose Drupal then they are in strict compliance with the GPL anyway.
My point here was more that they are basically pulling the rug out from under the extensions community in a BIG way.
A lot of what has made Joomla such an attractive CMS is the commercial components. Not because they are commercial, but because they are generally high quality and well supported because they are treated like a professional extension. It is a lot more difficult to develop a totally free extension to a professional level. Because exactly as you pointed out, you need to be doing many things at once to supplement your extension income which = less time to work on the extension = lower quality and less support.
Yes GPL doesn't need to be free but it can be after one download. And no person anywhere in the world would consider it same business practice to plan your business around the 'trust my customers to pay' model.
The system you outlined above works in many cases, but not in all. And most sadly, the better you code your product, the simpler and easier it is to use, the less bugs it has, then it becomes less likely that the above model is going to work. Because if people don't need you, the docs and the training videos, then they won't pay you.
If they would pay when they don't need to then donation models would work, which they don't at all and as far as I know never have. (barring of course corporate donations)
As I have pointed out several times it also hurts niche players with less mass appeal products.
Andrew Eddie wrote:
But hey, I take your point, and it's very valid. I think what's happened is that the old advice and attitudes that came from the Mambo project where not on the ball, if not possibly skewed to a preferred way of thinking. Joomla! has very good legal support now and I suspect what's happen is they've been tapped on the shoulder to make things right because of our popularity. And I'm as much at fault as anyone because I'm looking back and thinking "how the heck did we swallow some of this". Would a correction "hurt" Joomla!? Initially, most likely - but then that opens up new opportunities for some. Will it kill the project? I doubt it. I think in the long term it will improve things just because of the way other big players are supporting OS (eg, Google). There is also a very real risk that without a "correction", other projects like Drupal and Typo3 (and maybe Google??) would distance themselves from what is otherwise a healthy rivalry. That would be a very sad thing to see happen and that *could* kill the project.
No more than half the components vanishing overnight and (at a guess) 80% plus Joomla users begin suddenly left in the lurch without updates and support *could* kill the project.
It *will* (and the silence from the core team *is* already) hurt the project, it's the recovery that is in doubt. Will Joomla retain it's professionalism? Or fall to being merely a hobby CMS?
At the very least I hope the core team is smart enough to give an amnesty period, and offer alternatives such as continued sale of non gpl components for 1.12 but not for 1.5, to allow the software houses time to adapt.
As I said, this doesn't affect my business plans in the slightest, but it does affect components on which I rely and use and do not want to lose. I am speaking here as a concerned customer and not as a developer with my lively hood at stake.