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]