Is Alfresco a real Open Source?

[edless]

Certified Alfresco Partners only offer Level 1 Support, Consulting, Integration or Training on either the Alfresco Enterprise.

Open source was born to give people the possibility to share knowledge and expertise.

Why Alfresco is giving just to big company the possibility to be supported  on the product? Why I can't pay a Alfresco Partner just to support me on a community version, without asking any guaranty?

ED

[stevewickii]

That makes sense.

Thanks for looking into this.

Sincerely,

Stephen

[jerico_dev]

Hi Luis,

I agree with stevewickie that it would be nice to get TAGS within the public subversion marking the community edition milestones. If you don't have them internally then you could probably easily produce and synchronize them. As you publish Lab revision numbers anyway this will simply spare you some unnecessary questions on the forum.

@stevewickie: In the meantime you can check out the community version at revision 3278 and you'll get Labs 3c. See http://forums.alfresco.com/en/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15714&p=52231#p51534 for that.

I doubt that your internal investigation will give us any BRANCHES though. It's simply your community policy: No branches for the community, only development head.

Alfresco community edition (=HEAD) is open source (=OSI compliant) and GPL but according to Alfresco's own communication it is neither stable nor production ready (cf Alfresco Website) although many obviously use it in production. And to make that clear as well: Alfresco partners usually sign a contract in which they renounce to their right to support or distribute the community edition (thereby voluntarily giving up rights they previously gained under GPL). So you won't get "official" Alfresco support for the community edition even if you'd like to pay for it. You'd normally have to go to a non-accredited service provider to get community version support. This is perfectly legal but quite uncommon for an "open source" company.

Alfresco internal BRANCHES on the other hand are nothing but Alfresco's current and upcoming enterprise edition versions. And the enterprise edition will obviously not be replicated to the public unless Alfresco changes their open source policy. GPL defines "software" sufficiently well to include packaging. This means that it is correct to say that enterprise edition is neither OSI compliant nor GPL as long as it's packaging isn't OSI compliant. Your own website tries to make us believe something different calling enterprise edition 100% open source. As the term "open source" is not protected it's again not illegal to do so but it's very confusing. Enterprise edition follows a model that has been made popular by Microsoft under the term "shared code". If even Microsoft (who never called themselves an "open source company") has chosen to communicate clearly about their licensing model so why don't you do so as a declared "open source" company? I think you have the moral obligation to do so to protect the (informal) "open source" brand as it has been built up over years by the open source community.

Don't blame us for being confused if you are calling something open source that is neither OSI compliant nor GPL. Please do something to stop your own and your marketing department's misleading communication about that fact. If even Alfresco's "product evangelist" does not understand Alfresco's open source approach how can you expect customers or community members to do so.

Please take the time and read your own forum: http://forums.alfresco.com/en/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15454&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p50664. Hope this helps you to clear up some confusion and answer stevewickie's question. It's incredible that you still seem to be unable to explain Alfresco's open source (and subversion) approach "by heart" although your thread now spans 6 pages. You may not be a software developer or a lawyer but you should understand the basics of software development and licensing before you call yourself a software product evangelist.

I think you should resolve this internally and then please correct either your or Matt's forum posts. One of you both must be wrong. Additionally: If you don't want this thread to reach 100 pages then you should also correct your webpage and call enterprise edition "shared source" as opposed to community/lab version being "open source". Only then everybody will understand what you /really/ do.

Jerico

[mabayona]

Luis,

as a long time FLOSS user and contributor I appreciate very much the effort and work that alfresco is doing to be open source and remain in businness. I and may members of the community enjoy your help and contributions.

I think you inspire many people that shows up here in the forums. Some other users are some times impatient and even rude in their post. Please keep the good job with the community to help making Alfresco even a better product.

[jerico_dev]

Hi Luis,

I'm tired of taking abuse in the form of veiled insults and threats.

My critique was in no way "veiled". It was very open. Hope the support you get from others will help you to get over it. I admit that after all what I read from you and Matt I am no longer "emotionally neutral". Unfortunately it happened that I got to know you through this thread.

Red Hat does it (and states it) with Fedora: http://www.redhat.com/software/rhelorfedora/

I cannot see any statement here about Red Hat disallowing their partners to support Fedora… I have searched their partner contracts some weeks ago about it. It's a lot of stuff to read so I might easily overlook something. You seem to know better. Could you point me to the exact location?

There are numerous hurdles and pitfalls affecting commercial open source which simply don't make an appearance with more "traditional" FLOSS projects. Matt is the authority when it comes to open source licensing and legal matters. Given his law degree and background working with the OSI, I defer to his explanation on these matters when and if there's a discrepancy between what he and I state.

Could you or Matt please correct your own earlier posts in this thread where they are wrong? You are representing Alfresco and people will trust your statements when they happen to read them without reading everything else on this forum.

Looking at your posts you seem to do alot more "taking" than "giving"…

It's the first time I have to justify myself for using "open source". After what I have learned about your open source approach I am not surprised that it happens with Alfresco. The point is: Everybody who uses open source takes a lot more than he or she gives. Nobody has to write a complete Linux distribution before using one. Compare the lines of code you got (thousands of Linux packages, MediaWiki, phpBB, Altlassian, etc. etc.) with your own contribution. Alfresco's contribution is ridiculously small compared to the mass of free code, forum entries and documentation you are using yourself every day. Not 1:16. Maybe 1:100,000 (measured in lines of code). Even if you didn't write one line of code you'd help open source just by using (and thereby testing) it. If you don't understand that then you'll always be unhappy with your community and consider them illegitimate "free-riders".

Jerico

[hardcoras]

Hi Jerico,

First of all, sorry for my broken English.

I'm very thankful to you for trying to clear the true policy about community. I support your thoughts about how Alfresco treats community, how they use "open source" trademark, etc.
And because of Alfresco's "honest" policy I stand in a crossroad. The first way to take is to go after Nuxeo because it's a really true open source system. And the second one to stick with Alfresco, because I admire what Alfresco's team done and I have 1,5 year experience with Alfresco.  But I don't like this buggy unusable Labs edition we have right now and I need a normal version, stable enough for production use. And because of current Alfresco's policy I don't hope to see any stable Labs edition anytime soon, so I hope we could fork Alfresco's code and make it stable enough for production.
Because I don't have enough time to make a fork right now (I have just established a company and my wife is going to have a baby in early February, so I'm busy like a hell) and because you were planing to fork Alfresco some time ago, so I'm wondering maybe  you could create a fork yourself. I think a huge part of the current Alfresco's community gonna go after you (including me).

Can you answer what are you planing to do about a fork in the near future? It would help me very much to decide which way to take next: nuxeo or alfresco.

Thanks.

[jerico_dev]

Hi hardcoras,

The first way to take is to go after Nuxeo because it's a really true open source system. And the second one to stick with Alfresco, because I admire what Alfresco's team done and I have 1,5 year experience with Alfresco.

I think many have these mixed feelings. I do as well. Certainly none of us wants to damage Alfresco. I believe that Alfresco is currently just damaging itself by communicating as imprudently as they did. I wouldn't spend so much of my time on discussing with Alfresco representatives if I thought it wasn't worth it. What I can see until now is that (although sometimes rough) the dialogue has been very productive so far. Things are moving forward. Whatever the result of this process: It's going to facilitate decisions like yours or mine towards Alfresco vs. Nuxeo.

because you were planing to fork Alfresco some time ago, so I'm wondering maybe  you could create a fork yourself. I think a huge part of the current Alfresco's community gonna go after you (including me).

If you like more information about our activities in this area then please contact me in private. I don't want to abuse Alfresco's forum infrastructure to make publicity for a third-party project that is not backed by Alfresco or parts of the Alfresco community.

Jerico

PS: I edited the post to remove my initial references to a third-party project that is not backed by Alfresco and parts of the Alfresco community.

[mabayona]

Jerico.dev,

i´m reading your open posts and feel uneasy with them. I have no problem if those comments were somewere else. The world in Internet is wide open. My impression however is that you are acting like a real virus or parasite not only on Alfresco but on the complete Alfresco Community.

Please, go away form Alfresco forums. Some of us are trying to improve existing software and do not need your comments or attempts to gain more support for your own agenda. I hope you are successful using YOUR OWN resources and stop being a parasite.

The forums are open even to you but, please, stop abusing them.

[tyco]

Hello (and please forgive my terrible English!)

I do agree with mabayona that I would not like the Community to be splitting, with some to go to your own Alfresco source code. I do think that the good people at Alfresco need to certainly improve the release of "Labs" because it is not clear to me which version to use and where to get a bug fix from.

BUT it will be not good news if there is more confusion still about which code to get and if some new feature is in Alfresco but not yours, do you not think? You are just one person but Alfresco are many and they do know the softwares better also. What do you think about this?

– T

[leon]

I come back to see what it is after several years. But it is on the old place as well

——————–
DON'T USE THE WORD "OPEN", IF U CAN'T DO IT.

[jerico_dev]

Hi mabayona,

The forums are open even to you but, please, stop abusing them.

I am sorry if you felt that I was abusing the forum. Unfortunately you didn't say exactly what you found abusive or parasitic about my last statement.

I guess you didn't like my references to a third-party project that is not backed by Alfresco or yourself. As I really just want to discuss Alfresco's open source and community approach here and not make publicity for any third-party project using resources that are not mine I've removed those reference that I believe you found to be abusive.

If you feel that there is still abusive content posted right now then please contact me and tell me which.

You probably don't believe that forking open source code is abusive or "parasitic" as such. Alfresco's most prominent open source authority, Matt Asay, is very clear in this respect. Maybe if you consider his statements you'll soften your opinion a little:

Matt Asay, vice president of business development at Alfresco, told me that the risk of a forked version of Alfresco's GPL code would be a positive thing for the company.

"We would be ecstatic if someone forked the GPL version of Alfresco because then they get to go off on their fork and develop their own system but we would also benefit from the work that they do," Asay commented.

"If we can't compete based on the work that we're doing on our own code as well as benefiting form the work that a fork would do on theirs, then we don't deserve to be in business."

Source: http://www.internetnews.com/reporters_notebook/article.php/3672596

Also see other statements from Matt that are relevant in this context:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9997274-16.html (about the "right to fork" and open source competition in the case of mySQL fork "Drizzle")
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9929032-16.html (about the implications of GPL)

Anything I or others will do is going to be available under GPL. So according to Matt what I am trying is not only legitimate but also welcome. I however doubt myself whether a forked community project will ever be competitive. If we don't add enough real value then nobody will use our software. Fortunately in an open source world neither Alfresco nor you nor I can make anybody use the software we want them to use. So what I am about to do is not such a big thing as you might believe. If Matt or I are right you can just sit back and relax as you'll loose nothing.

I hope that (with some few exceptions that are probably just human) my critique has always been argued so far. Therefore I think it is just right if you expose your own arguments as well. I am sure that if you are right then people will perceive that and follow your argument.

Jerico