[OOTB-hive] "Keep SPP IP proprietary"

[Richard Esplin]

Great suggestion. Thank you.

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 06:25:53 Peter Löfgren wrote:
> I hope that those responsible goes for Richards proposal. Clearly better
> than the current situation.
> What I would like to add is that Alfresco adds extension points and
> document those so that the Community can start adding features to AOS. As
> we all know Open Source extends its value when the Community can contribute
> back.
> With this Alfresco Enterprise will have its closed paying customers only
> features, but will benefit from the additional features that the Community
> can add.
> 
> Peter
> 
> <richard.esplin at alfresco.com>:
> 
> > The current implementation of AOS is meant to meet the same use case that
> > was met by the VTI module, but work more reliably. This is why there is not
> > much that is currently expected to be excluded from Community Edition. The
> > big Enterprise-only feature in the current proposal is to allow custom
> > content models to be exposed so that metadata can be edited using the
> > properties pane within Microsoft Office. This provides a lot of value in
> > some environments, but I don't believe it is a common enough use case to be
> > considered "core collaboration functionality".
> >
> > We do not currently have any other improvements to AOS scoped for
> > development, but theoretically there are many other MS Office SharePoint
> > collaboration features that can be added to the module. I think the current
> > features meet the core use case necessary for Community Edition, and so
> > these potential future features would be reserved as a differentiator for
> > Enterprise Edition. Our integrations team is booked through the next
> > release of AlfrescoOne, after which they will evaluate further development
> > of AOS.
> >
> > I certainly agree that there is a lot of value to the open source
> > community if we release the entire module as open source, but the open
> > source community is not the only stakeholder. <grin> We will be releasing
> > everything for which I can make a convincing business case. It's taken some
> > time to put together a solid proposal, but I think it shows a lot of value
> > for everyone.
> >
> > As always, thanks for the conversation. And than you for your patience as
> > this has taken far longer then we expected when we discussed it last
> > November.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 05:52:54 Peter Löfgren wrote:
> > > This is interesting, and I think a step in the right direction.
> > > What would be the features of Advanced Sharepoint classes that are left
> > out
> > > access to Community? Reading ALF-21295 I think this has the list what
> > will
> > > be in Open version, but what is left out? I've never been able to find
> > > product page on AOS (or any other addon like Transformation server)
> > >
> > > As much as I value the Open Source part of this I do not argue against
> > > proprietary modules. After all, we have proprietary modules ourself. More
> > > of a concern is that Community edition users will not be able to purchase
> > > the full module. Not knowing what features AOS Community/Enterprise will
> > > have, if I have to choose between a very slimmed downed Community that is
> > > open source or a AOS full feature proprietary available for purchase for
> > > all, I may go for the latter. I've argued this for modules/addons with
> > > Alfresco employees before, but it seems like it is not going to happen.
> > >
> > > I actually had a Community customer wanting to purchase this, but it was
> > > not an option from Alfresco to offer this for them.
> > >
> > > But best is of course full open source for the entire module :)
> > > I'll even be happy with slimmed down version, as long as it at minimum
> > > supports what the SPP module does today.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > <richard.esplin at alfresco.com>:
> > >
> > > > Thank you for the feedback, it is very useful.
> > > >
> > > > I just want to highlight that ALF-21304 is part of Epic ALF-21295.
> > This is
> > > > a
> > > > proposal, and has not yet been approved by management.
> > > >
> > > > There were some concerns about my making the issues public, but I
> > > > considered
> > > > it important to explain the concerns some members of the team have
> > about
> > > > open
> > > > sourcing AOS.
> > > >
> > > > One concern with the proposal was that members of the team feared the
> > open
> > > > source community would not appreciate a closed source module in
> > Community
> > > > Edition. It is good to know that many of you feel that is a reasonable
> > > > approach for us to take. I want to make Community Edition as
> > full-featured
> > > > as
> > > > possible, even if we are not able to release all of the code. I can
> > see us
> > > > taking this approach with other add-ons that are currently
> > Enterprise-only.
> > > > However, I think it is important that any proprietary modules in
> > Community
> > > > Edition be optional and that the open source product be robust and
> > useful
> > > > without them.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you again for the feedback.
> > > >
> > > > Richard
> > > >
> >
> >