Fork?
Page: 1, 2
Recent posts in this topic
I appreciate all the work that the individual Ilija has put into this project. He's put in a lot of personal time and effort. He deserves some form of compensation for his work. However, this should have been the consideration from the start when he decided to work on the project open source. This project should not fee based. It should stay free and open. You should have found another way to compensate yourself without crippling the core. You could have established yourself as a third party developer to the core and charged for extra functionalities. You have commercialized and closed a once free and open project. Dreamhost has already dropped you as a one click install. I'm sure the majority of us will be also abandoning this project. I call for a fork, as of today. Good bye activecollab, hello "activecollab fork."
I see there is already a fork at http://projectpier.org. Is this the consensus?
If you don't need (want to pay for) the extra stuff in AC 1.0 why not use AC 0.7 or one of the AC 0.7 forks that are already out there? Some of us run companies and spending $400 for a good project management systems isn't much.
I think http://www.opengoo.org/ is another fork of AC 0.7. I've played around with both openGoo and ProjectPier - they are both nice if you want something that is free. However, I don't see them as a replacement for ActiveCollab 1.0 for people that don't mind paying for the extra features!
isaiah:If you don't need (want to pay for) the extra stuff in AC 1.0 why not use AC 0.7 or one of the AC 0.7 forks that are already out there? Some of us run companies and spending $400 for a good project management systems isn't much.
Not the point Isaiah. It is not a pricing issue. It is starting a project as open source, utilizing people's talents and efforts in collaboration on that open source, then closing it and commercializing it. This undermines the open source movement. Why should any of use involve ourselves in the core on these projects if the future holds personal enrichment for the few insiders.
The "once free and open project" is still free and open. It appears that the new one isn't even based on the same codebase, but I could be wrong. At any rate, you have what you always had. So what's the bitching for?
YAAAWWWWN
YAAAWWWWN
Free version? Don't wait for christmas, Santa's planning to take some days off drinking piña coladas in Miami :p
Walid Iguer
Open source project should start free and keep the code open, and should continue free and keep the code open. Shouldn't have to fork every time someone wants to get paid. A lot more people than Ilija have worked on this project (although I have been tracking this and do understand he has done the bulk of the work.) He has benefited from many people's efforts here. Where is their compensation from the new business model? They thought they were contributing to open source. Would you even be here if this project wasn't open source? A complete user base has been established based on the assumption the project was open source. This method of starting as open source, then going commercial with the project is a bad trend. It undermines confidence in open source projects. I appreciate any contributions to this discussion.
I'm only here because version 1 isn't open source and has actually been turned into a usable system.
I tried the open source version and didn't like it. At all.
The new version is fully within the rights of the developer, and if you wanted to go make your own fork and profit from it you'd be welcome to do so. Again, I point out that the open source version has not gone away. It's still there and still as full-fledged as it ever was. If it's usable to you (as it's not to me) then use it, modify it, and do whatever.
I tried the open source version and didn't like it. At all.
The new version is fully within the rights of the developer, and if you wanted to go make your own fork and profit from it you'd be welcome to do so. Again, I point out that the open source version has not gone away. It's still there and still as full-fledged as it ever was. If it's usable to you (as it's not to me) then use it, modify it, and do whatever.
Brady J. Frey
on Oct 24. 2007. 8:17 pm
I think the point he's trying to make is that some developers feel like they were putting their personal time supporting an open source project, as many of us have done for other welcomed projects, only to be turned into a commercial entity. The idea is that activeCollab could be exploiting that communities momentum, only to turn into a similar entity to Basecamp and goplan.
I've worked on both open source, and have paid my fees for the high end system (splunk comes to mind) - but this is the first time I've see the intention to become a commercial project masked until the projects 1.0 launch. The arguement isn't the usability, the cost, or the value of the software fitzage; the arguement is the hush, and debatably deceptive manner... I'll check the blog, maybe I missed an announcement, but I'm just as disappointed, and I'm willing to pay for quality software. Call it principle, not a debate of value.
I've worked on both open source, and have paid my fees for the high end system (splunk comes to mind) - but this is the first time I've see the intention to become a commercial project masked until the projects 1.0 launch. The arguement isn't the usability, the cost, or the value of the software fitzage; the arguement is the hush, and debatably deceptive manner... I'll check the blog, maybe I missed an announcement, but I'm just as disappointed, and I'm willing to pay for quality software. Call it principle, not a debate of value.
