Dizkus

Well to each his own I guess.

No sense in arguing on the internet. :?

--
Zikula Themes

And if a company decides to use PostNuke, or some other OSS software in their company, and pays somebody for potentially hundreds of man hours to add functionality to that software, they should be required to release it to the public too?

They're still paying money for what they get. So, what's the difference?

I don't think you are considering the scope of open source or you are attributing too much to it, Steve. Being open allows us to customize and improve on parts of a program or module, even fix it. Some people will develop a program or module further, or pay someone to do it if they lack the skills personally.

Some will develop, or have developed on their behalf, features unique to their site in order to distinguish their site from others. Any other site is free to do the same. It doesn't mean they have or should have any entitlement to all the efforts of others. That's part of communism and as such is counter productive to creativity

The nature of open source allows anyone to duplicate the efforts of others without mooching off their efforts. No one is entitled to be a mooch.

--
Yes, I have checked the pnGuide and done a search on the forums before posting my question.
PN Guides for Beginners
How To Find Answers and Ask Questions

Sorry you feel my way is wrong but like I said, my last presentation wasn't meant to make the best point. I admit it.

I do share. But the fact remains. Open Source doesn't mean you have to share. Open Source and GPL means that IF you redistribute what you have done, you have to share the source also.

That is a far different concept than being just the "Here, I did it, I have the obligation to give to you."

That would be a very false interpretation of what is development in a general way. Open Source or not, GPL or not.

And many people including me would not get into this type of concept. We have the choice to make it free, to sell it or to keep it. To share is not an obligation... and it is not a moral obligation also. If it was, we would be a damn big bunch of immorals... ha ha !

At the moment, I have about 15 mods in creation and only one or 2 will be public for sharing on pnconcept (my site). And they will be renamed if I decide to share them.
The other mods, you will only see them if you accidently stumble upon my company's website and even then, registration will be higly moderated. They won't be shared to my clients, they won't be given at all.

Not because I don't think they are not good. But because those are exclusivity, they serve a specific purpose that will be exclusive to the domain we are working on, etc, etc, bla bla bla. My salary didn't changed even though I took this work on top of what I already do. (That is asides what I could do for a remuneration outside my work).

As for the gratification, yes, it's cool... but the same reason can be mentioned. Also, I can't speak for the others, but for me, I never did something (in the CMS world) to be proud that someone will say : "Great mod !".

I am sometime proud of my work, sometimes less... if I share it, I'm happy it helps, but my gratification comes only if I'm proud of the thing I have made. Does it work ? Any bug ? Does it look good ?... If I made it public, what are the reactions, etc.

Other's opinion is important of course but not at the point to be proud as far as I'm concerned. It's only a way that helps my decisions, where I want to go with my work and so on.

To conclude, I have no problem creating something that nobody will see except a small pool of individuals. If I did the thing, it was for a purpose and my main motivations are that the thing works and that it's useful. Being for one person or 20000.

Being GPL, Open Source, coming from a widely shared CMS or using code such as PostNuke... Has nothing to do with that.
;)

P.S. : That is not an answer to a flame or else... only a better presentation of what I do in real life. ;)

P.S.2. : I wonder how many lines of code M$crosoft has taken in the past that they do not share.

--
Chestnut !
Support via Private message won't be answered...
http://dev.pnconcept.com
http://www.postnuke-france.org

You are mistaken, mon ami. Your pncUserhack is a great mod and helps me keep those full of merd spammers off my site.

--
Yes, I have checked the pnGuide and done a search on the forums before posting my question.
PN Guides for Beginners
How To Find Answers and Ask Questions

...

--
Chestnut !
Support via Private message won't be answered...
http://dev.pnconcept.com
http://www.postnuke-france.org

I have to agree with Chestnut. I am working on my 3rd paid module right now, the clients in all 3 cases have chosen to allow the modules to be distributed by myself under the GPL. I was negotiating with someone else on exclusive rights development, though that seemed to have never gotten past initial discussions. Both cases it was their rights to determine how the work was distributed.

Likewise, I needed a Prayer request module for my Church's site. In this case, I released the code GPL. Did I have to? No. However given the 300+ downloads the last time I checked (When it was being tracked), it was obviously a need that was there that had never been voiced (maybe never considered).

Conversly, I'm planing to develop some modules (have been quite a while) that will ehance my webhosting services. Those I will not release at all probably, definitly not for free. Why? Because I need something to set me apart from other hosts. Anyone can offer PostNuke hosting, but if I can write a module to put in to the PostNuke accounts I host that will give something special to my clients, then that's a selling point. ANd I'm not worried about the code getting out nessecarily because the particular hosting service I'll be using it in will not give the end users FTP or File access.

Client's don't pay for your code. They pay for the value your code brings them. In this case - one client valued it more than the other. Either way - if you own the code (which you may or may not if a client pays you to write it, and you don't have a contract spelling out intellectual property rights) you can change whatever you feel like. Of course, don't expect customers to be happy if they find out that you're selling them what you're giving away to others.

That is what I said... not what you say I said... but you're right for the rest ! ;)

--
Chestnut !
Support via Private message won't be answered...
http://dev.pnconcept.com
http://www.postnuke-france.org

Chestnut, I think you forgot this part when you quoted me:



Or I can see for individuality or to be paid for your skills. However I like what Duster wrote :

No I didn't forget, my overall answer was in a more general way... but if it wasn't clear enough, sorry... my english is sometimes... well... you saw !

Yessss... Duster always find the right words !

--
Chestnut !
Support via Private message won't be answered...
http://dev.pnconcept.com
http://www.postnuke-france.org

I've been debating this for some time, based on arguments over ten dollar themes and such. One thing to keep in mind when evaluating this issue is that not all theme/module/block developers are student age(college or otherwise). Many have families and careers of their own, as well as other responsibilities. Here are my conclusions::

If the developer of a given work is commissioned to write something, or sees a need and fills it, at the expense of, or in spite of, their other demands, it is completely reasonable that they ask a price of the requesting entity. I believe that ownership of, and rights to, the said work, should be discussed and defined before any outsourced work is done. This may result in either the requestor having all rights to distribute the product, paid or otherwise, or the requestor having the rights to use, while the developer retains distribution rights, paid or otherwise. What you have to reealize is that, like it or not, time is extremely valuable to many older developers here and abroad. With such a wide array of possible clients and projects available, a reasonable incentive should be present to make us want to do your work.

Hope this helps, even if just a little, in gaining some perspective on the issue.

--
"I'm part them." - Dakota Fanning as Allie Keys

Hey, I mostly share everything, but I code like a bum. 8*))

No, seriously, everyone has the right to sell his work, to copyright it, to keep it for himself or to delete it.

I always take that as a compliment when someone calls me that. :P Not the greedy part but the Capitalist.

When someone wants something from you for free and you don't give it to them and their first response is to call YOU greedy, who is the greedy one?

:wink:

It's rather interesting to follow these discussions. I am a non-coder who can follow directions, sometimes! I run sites for free, this is not my occupation but I invest my time and energy into my community by learning enough to make sure people have a web presence they could not otherwise enjoy. I make no money from this but derive quite some satisfaction in knowing that what I do helps others who deserve that help.

As for Axe:

Well, not everyone is out there trying to "best" your site. And if the site is for a specific audience, who cares if they do? The sites I run have no paid advertising. In a simplified model of world trade, the better everyone does, the better you do as well.

Does someone have a right to keep the fruits of their labors to themselves? Does someone have a right to derive an income from such protected intellectual pursuits? Of course. No argument there.

Do we all have an obligation to share in our talents to better our community, however broad that definition has become? In my opinion, absolutely.

But than, as I have said, my talents do not lie in coding, at least not yet.