Dave Burke - Beach Week Chronicles: Community Server and Open Source

Beach Week Chronicles: Community Server and Open Source

I don't understand how people don't get that Community Server is an Open Source application. Of course it's an Open Source application. Somehow, because there are commercial Add-Ons, paid support options and other professional services available from Telligent, Community Server is somehow tainted and no longer fits the pure Open Source profile. Or maybe it’s my imagination and I’m drawing from echos of conversations that took place a year ago and this Opinion Piece is completely irrelevant.

It was the Open Source architecture that drew me to .text, and afterward to Community Server. If Community Server weren’t a true Open Source application by my definition, I wouldn't be interested in it today either.

To talk about Community Server and Open Source we should start with a baseline definition of an Open Source application: All of the source code is available. For free. There might be some confusion on that issue, so I want to say more about it.

First, the absolute very same core engine that runs weblogs.asp.net, blogs.msdn.com and one2one.dell.com is available in the Community Server SDK. Those sites have been modified by Telligent developers based on certain site specifications, but any developer can build the same features and make the same customizations on any site using the free SDK.

"But where's the source to the File Gallery Module?" you say. Yeap, that's one project where the source is not included in the SDK. This is due to restrictions in the number of files allowed in the free version of Community Server. I've not discussed this topic with any other Telligenti and as I said from the gitgo, this is a pure Opinion Piece, but I would love to see the source for the File Gallery Module included in the free SDK as well.

That said, I am not writing this to necessarily argue for including the File Gallery source in the SDK, my point about Community Server and Open Source is that there’s a sense of ownership and freedom in using Community Server Forums, Blogs, Photos and other modules where the source code is available. There is not that same sense of ownership and freedom with the File Gallery simply because there is no access to the module's source code.

You may have noticed that there's no File Gallery application on my personal site. The File Gallery is a great application, and if I used it I would know how many people downloaded the various CSModules, CS Mods and Source ZIPs I’ve put online. But I can't go as far with the File Gallery application as I might want to go. And I’m not talking about File restrictions, since the 50 files allowed in the Free Version of Community Server are more than enough for my needs. I'm talking about not being able to go as far with the code and not able to customize File Galleries as much as I might like. I'm locked into what the app does out of the box, so I'm just not interested. It's like dating a beautiful girl who you know you're never going to get to third base with. I mean, what’s the point?

Open Source and Community Server is such a huge topic. I could write on a different aspect of it every day while at the beach. There's one other Open Source quality that comes to mind before I wrap for now: community-contributed source code. Free love, everybody come and get you some! But operationally and statistically, that just doesn't work. Thankfully the Source Code Trees that comprise Community Server are behind a veiled curtain, and only the select high priests can get back there without being destroyed by otherworldly creatures like the ones that came out of the Lost Ark in Indiana Jones to wipe out Belloq and his Nazi thugs. And that's the way I want it. Community Server Source Code is sacred stuff, and I want only the best having the keys to it.

[tags: Community Server, Open Source]

Comments (6) | Post RSS RSS comment feed

Posted on 7/25/2006 7:56:00 PM by Dave Burke
Categories: Community Server

Comments

daveburke said:

Both Phil and Karl make good points about licensing aspects of an Open Source application and whether CS meets the strict definition of Open Source. I commented on both posts. Thanks, guys.

July 26. 2006 10:31

Observer said:

CS is not a true open source application. Don't kid yourself. CS has the worst documentation known to man, and the powerful features are all propriety and you have so many restrictions on usage of the free version, it's a crock. All you do is get people to contribute to your development for free and then charge them and others to use their contributions in a later version. Have you noticed that people don't really freely give up the good CS modifications to the community? It's really only the people at Telligent trying to push their own agendas. CS is just a thinly veiled front for a company that believes in Open Source. CS has been going away from the OS model and subsequently ripping features from the core code and wanting to make them add-ons...like the spam filter or file gallery. Microsoft is going to buy Telligent and/or Community Server anyway, if they don't already have a strategic investment. While you are a level headed Telligenti, you might want to relay to your peeps that we're not idiots.

July 26. 2006 19:30

daveburke said:

Observer, A couple of points. None of the commercial add-ons in CS have ever been part of the core. The Spam filter code has always been provided in the SDK. The file gallery has never been available, that's true, but it's not like it was ever yanked from the core.

As for CS modifications not being freely given up, since I wrote a LOT of them, I can tell you that the packaging and documenting of the mods is time consuming and is the only reason that I haven't made every mod available here at dbvt.com. There are so many mods out there in the community and I have never known people to purposely refuse sharing them or to help others with the mods when they can. These are not Telligenti pushing an agenda either.

I didn't mean to take up a Cause here. Sorry if it sounded that way in my original post. We're obviously going to disagree regardless. Thanks for your comments.

July 26. 2006 19:57

Joe Brinkman said:

Actually Dave, Rob Howard has told me directly that he considers Community Server to be a shared source application and not Open Source. There is a huge difference between someone who allows you to see their code and someone who gives you a license to modify and distribute the code.

If Telligent decided tomorrow to stop offering Community Server, then that is it. The application dies. Nobody in the community can do anything about it. In the Open Source world, if the original developer decides to stop offering the application, anyone else is free to pick up the application and continue developing and distributing the application as long as they complied with the license. This is not an insignificant distinction.

July 27. 2006 18:35

daveburke said:

Thank you, Joe. Yes, I'm learning these distinctions now as a result of this opinion piece. There have been a few alternative terms thrown out as well, like Brendan Tompkin's "Open Plenty." Funny.

codebetter.com/.../147723.aspx

Clearly the argument for Community Server as a classic Open Source application isn't there. And your point about Telligent pulling support for CS source, though you and I both would probably agree would never happen, is still correct.

Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts on this.

July 28. 2006 05:13

Usman said:

its The Best

December 5. 2006 04:36

Comments are closed

Dave Burke : Freelance .NET Web Developer specializing in Online Communities

Beach Week Chronicles: Community Server and Open Source

Related posts

Comments