"Release from Project" button...

Permalink
...does anyone know where it's gone and in its absence, how do we release unwanted add-ons and themes to use on other projects?

thebigideasman
View Replies: View Best Answer
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
Bump
enlil replied on at Permalink Reply
enlil
Bit of a pain yes! At the moment I have a few free ones I'd like to remove because i simply dont use them and can't. I'm guessing this is a bug in the process of setting up the marketplace for 5.7. I also wonder what might happen if you delete the project and then recreate it again. The add-ons should be available again for re-association? I may have to give that a go to see what happens...
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
I agree it is a big pain and I would love to have some feedback from Concrete5 about this, ...please if you're listening?

Please let me know how you get on @enlil with the re-association
sully210 replied on at Permalink Reply
sully210
I am having the same problem. I want to release some addons from a project and there is no longer an option for it. I am only using 5.6.3.2 and have not yet even upgraded to 5.7. Projects always seem to have quite a few bugs and quirks. I need to move these addons and assign them to other sites so A reply from C5 would indeed be helpful.
VidalThemes replied on at Permalink Reply
VidalThemes
A response from C5 would be appreciated, I have a customer who bought a 5.6 theme when they have a 5.7 install, they then installed 5.6 so they could use the theme but now cannot release the license, need some guidance on this, a speedy response would be appreciated.
VidalThemes replied on at Permalink Reply
VidalThemes
I have just had a go at this, deleting the project does indeed release the license, but obviously this is not ideal if you wish to keep the project but want to just release an add-on.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
I couldn't agree more @Vidall, this is a real problem.
frz replied on at Permalink Reply
frz
This is the new intended behavior. Once a license is assigned to a project page, that starts a 5 day count down on the ability to just remove it from that project page with a click. This should be plenty of time to cover a mistake on which project it was assigned to, etc.

If you really need to release stuff later, you can still delete the whole project page as vidall notes.

We made this change as we implemented recent support system changes.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
Hi Franz, thanks for your explanation, but I do think it's a bit naughty to make this kind of change without telling people and at least giving them a grace period to clean up and disassociate unused add-ons and themes.

As others have said, this unannounced change this does create a lot of problems, particularly when customers change their minds and don't or can't respond within 5 days (that's assuming you're ready to show them within that period).

I still can't understand why you've felt the need to do this?
wintechcs replied on at Permalink Reply
wintechcs
I don't see why we should not have the ability to transfer a license from one site to another considering we have paid for them and even so 5 Days seems a bit unreasonable.
I know I have built a lot of websites that took a lot longer than five days to build and get approved by customers.
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
@Frz Hi Franz. I don't know about the "recent support system changes" that were implemented, but I think licensing and support are essentially two different things, and perhaps tying them together however you are is less than ideal, because the bottom line on licensing is we should be able to transfer a license. I own software that is licensed and attached to a particular computer. It's paid for, and if I no longer am using it on whatever computer the license was attached to, I'm allowed to "disconnect" that license to use on another computer! How is it any different if for whatever reason I no longer need an add-on or theme for a particular site and I want to be able to use it on some other site?
datacraftsteve replied on at Permalink Reply
datacraftsteve
I too am very disappointed with this new 5 day limit.

I'm the owner of a small 2 person company and I'm responsible for sales, accounting, project management, working on jobs and janitorial duties. Time is very tight and I jump from one fire to the next.

When time permits I work on my site and when things pop up as they always do, I have to drop it and put my attention on the new problem. It can take several weeks before I'm able to get back to work on my web site. And some of these sites have been test sites where I'm trying something out and don't want to mess up the main site.

This new rule means I won't be able to use licenses I assigned to a test site or if I need to uninstall and re-install an add on (which I'm trying to do right now in vain), I can't reinstall it.

I really don't see the logic or fairness in this.
patej replied on at Permalink Reply
patej
Hi Franz,
I can't come up with any examples where 5 days would have been enough to evaluate, customize and test an add-on and get approval for a site... In addition, I have never, neither as a developer nor a customer, had a project where a site's functionalities would be approved add-on by add-on or element by element and nowadays getting any response from a client within 5 days (even in 5 working days) is quite optimistic.

In my opinion releasing from the project should be available any time, also after launching the site because there can be many reasons for changing some functionalities etc later on, which require switching to a different add-on or removing one... I, too, would like to hear what are those "recent support system changes" were (are there possibly some other silent changes we should be aware of?), not that it changes the need for the Release license button...

Best regards,
Patrik
socalrescue replied on at Permalink Reply
Oh wow - finally found this thread. I'm trying to rebuild a site that was completely overwritten. The backups failed so I started over with a new installation. This explains why NONE of my purchased licenses are available. to me. This is cheesy and disappointing, up until now I would have recommended Concrete5.
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
After reading many of the posts here, it seems as though many may be unaware that there is currently a way to avoid the problem, so I feel I should point it out. And that is, it is not mandatory to assign a license to a specific site project. The means are there to simply save the license, download the add-on or theme, and manually install, uninstall, and install on a different site (if and whenever needed, whether it's 5 days, or 5 weeks, or months, whenever).

In order to do this, however, you can't do an automated marketplace install. You simply purchase through the marketplace, and click SAVE. Then when you go into your ACCOUNT>>TRANSACTIONS>>LICENSES, it will be listed there unattached to any site, and available for download.

Granted, it's a trade off of convenience, and requires slightly more knowledge/work (download, extract, FTP to the appropriate folder location, etc.), but at least it's an option that avoids all the concerns being expressed here thus far. I personally prefer to do it this way most of the time for this very reason. Perhaps this isn't "pushed" because it also opens the door for dishonesty and using the add-on or theme beyond the license agreement of one site, but really someone who wants to do that can do that anyway.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
Thanks @OKDnet. Possibly not the best thing to broadcast for the the reasons you state, but as you say no matter what security you have, someone will find a way round it.

However, doesn't this make it all the more reason to keep the control of the licenses via the Concrete5 website and the "release from project" button could allow this. The security weakness appears to be (from what you say) the license/download page. But I'm sure it can't beyond the capabilities of the Concrete5 techies to come up with a better solution that keeps everyone happy, ...is it @Frz?????
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
...But as it stands and as others on here have said here @Frz. The loss of this functionality has made Concrete5 overnight, a questionable proposition for website designers!

Please, please, please, can we have the "Release from Project" button back?
frz replied on at Permalink Reply
frz
Totally understand the concern and perfectly willing to adjust.

A couple of points to offer for this discussion:

1) If you're moving a stage site or around different developer boxes, simply move a copy of the database with it and all instances will connect to the same project page. No need to release a license.

2) Yes, as someone else pointed out, you can simply download the packages instead of assigning licenses.

3) Yes, we consolidated pre-sales questions, support questions, and discussion questions into one system and added the ability to buy paid support. This was discussed at length here:
http://www.concrete5.org/community/forums/chat/limit-the-life-of-pu...

There isn't an evil plan here, just lots of different interests and us juggling to find the right balance - which we're happy to continually revisit. The way this connects is we were trying to figure out how to more accurately limit the support developers are required to give. I've had people who bought ecommerce several years ago, have assigned that single license to several different sites, and are still asking support questions with a grumpy attitude 3 years later. That's untenable for any software company, and it's never been policy. We've always said support was 30 days and then we encouraged developers to be prompt for 90 - but there were no limits on when you could make the ticket.

So with the most recent round of changes we implemented the 5 day reassign math, and then we started counting down 30 days from them on your support. We thought that was a pretty fair way to not penalize someone who wasn't using the add-on yet.

Additionally, I can add some stuff to make our 3rd party add-on developers blood boil. Looking at our purchase history and license reassignment logs (yes we track this), about 15% of all licenses (free and paid) have been reassigned at least once. Some are far worse.

I see a license of the area splitter, a handy $15 add-on from early days, that has been reassigned 108 times.

One license for ProBlog was released from a project page 68 times. Looking over its history that one license has been assigned to 44 distinct concrete site records.

A designer content pro license bought once and assigned to 19 different sites.

Now I imagine that most of the reassigns from people in this discussion are totally legitimate. When we work on stages, we're moving the database around but clearly some folks are working differently, which we'd love to support.

I'm sure everyone would agree, its not really fair to the add-on developers to pay $15 and then use an add-on over 100 times however.

So all of that being said, ideas?
A longer period perhaps?
datacraftsteve replied on at Permalink Reply
datacraftsteve
Frz brings up some good stats on how these add ons are being used over and over without payment to the author.

Personally, I have installed, uninstalled and re-installed ProBlog at least twice, maybe 3 times and did the same for Word Press For C5 blog at least 3 times also. I installed the WP for C5 months ago, got it up and running but had no time to do anything with it. About two months ago I have time, I go back to it and it's broken. I uninstall, reinstall still can't get it to work. I hire someone to help, they take weeks to get to my project. They think they fix it but still doesn't work. So, after they make a few more tries I give up on them, that person was a WP person not really a C5 person. I buy a ProBlog license which seems much easier and for me that's really important.

ProBlog works but then crashes. I think there's a conflict between it and the WP4C5 so I uninstall both. and reinstall ProBlog. Still broke. In fact, the WP blog page keeps coming up even though I uninstalled and searched my directory for anything WP and removed it. Something is probably messed up in "the database" which I have no idea where it is or how to fix it.

Now I have two blog add ons, neither is working on my site and I can't resintall either one or get to download it since I cannot unassign them.

As you probably guessed, I don't know much about what I'm doing. I do a lot of trial and error with lots of trials.

So finally a suggestion, I only bring up the verbose story because I'm one of the people with several installs but in an honest way.

Since you can see how many installs there are and since you can see if it is to the same or a different site, why not set a counter and limit the installs to say two or three unless it is an install to the same site, then maybe 5. This way, time is not involved so if a person can't work on it right away or can't get his client to approve it right away it's not a problem.

Could even have a counter on the install saying you have x number of installs left.
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
Proposal:

- licenses initially are all location indifferent by default making for flexible development.
- after 60 days, if said license has not be "hard associated", the addon stops working all together. (this could be hooked into easily with any $pkg lvl associations)
- after a license is "hard associated", it no longer verifies and works as normal.
- after a license is hard associated it can only be moved/migrated by a new support request type "migrate license" wherein the developers have visibility to how many times said license has been moved. They can then inquire as to the legitimacy of the move or simply click the "release license" button.

This solution would:

a) provide flexibility to designers moving dev environments around.
b) provide developers security
c) provide site owners an option to release and move in coordination with developers.

Another addition perhaps worth considering would be having a "Dev" or "Production" setting in C5 itself. Dev installs require a logged in admin to view, but do not check license at all. Production installs verify and associate as mentioned above.

ChadStrat
getsupport replied on at Permalink Reply
getsupport
Instead of responding on all license and -5 days (rather no) support giving bulsh#t topics
Better give your addon clients unlimited bug support they deserve.

Once a addon is bought, it should be working without errors.

If you get to many support questions there maybe something wrong in your coding structure.

If the developers really want some good licensing for there products, just lock the source code with ioncube en restrict on domain.
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
#Chatstrat
Instead of responding on all license and -5 days (rather no) support giving bulsh#t topics
Better give your addon clients unlimited bug support they deserve.

Once a addon is bought, it should be working without errors.

If you get to many support questions there maybe something wrong in your coding structure.

If the developers really want some good licensing for there products, just lock the source code with ioncube en restrict on domain.

5Numb3rs

====================

It's '@' symbol moron, not '#'. I have no idea wtf you're talking about. I was simply trying to offer a suggestion and be helpful. If you have a problem with me, I invite you to come visit me in Montana and I will show you some much needed attention. Since you obviously are starving for it.

ChadStrat
AliceTtr replied on at Permalink Reply
AliceTtr
That's not a very professional reaction:(
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
@AliceTtr - I don't care. 5Numb3rs is a troll and rude and acts like he owns the world and can be a total a$$ to whoever he wants without any accountability. I'm over it. He can 100% expect me to harass him any time he has rude interjections that are totally uncalled for. period.

ChadStrat
AliceTtr replied on at Permalink Reply
AliceTtr
Well i do not find it rude...
Your response threatening and hateful.
getsupport replied on at Permalink Reply
getsupport
Can you come to Amsterdam, we talk and a buy you a beer!?
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
@5Numb3rs - I'd love to come to Amsterdam and have a beer. I'd also love if you would stay on topic & not troll threads specifically looking to pi$$ people off. You want a friend...I'll be a friend. You want an enemy...I'm good with that too. Your call.

ChadStrat
getsupport replied on at Permalink Reply
getsupport
I am very sorry if i offended you.
Your "Proposal" did me explode a little.
The whole licensing discussion and the 5.7 bugs and no upgrade path (for allready bought$) 5.6 to 5.7 addons is really frustrating me.

I did love concrete5 cms for years, hate to look for a alternative.

So, lets be friends!?
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
I agree, can we keep it on topic and not make it personal, it's an unhelpful distraction and it doesn't encourage people to enter the discussion, especially developers who are probably the ones best placed to provide an answer. And the more ideas we can get from different people, the better it will be for all of us.
RobertJNL replied on at Permalink Reply
RobertJNL
"- after 60 days, if said license has not be "hard associated", the addon stops working all together. (this could be hooked into easily with any $pkg lvl associations)" - RadiantWeb

I am against a method like this. If you take my money, I own the license and can do with it (one install at a time) whatever I please, implement it when I need it for a project, move it when I can or need to.

Moving a package from project x to y: having to contact a developer for this, is not efficiënt; automate it. But even then; (for example) I have developed an internal intranet environment, which does not, and will not ever, connect to the internet; the license can not be verified.

Wanting to have some security as a developer against multiple usages of 1 license is understandable. Requiring a developer to have insight into my projects to be able to transfer a license or so; I have projects & clients whom simply will never allow this.

All in all your proposal points are understandable, but they come from, and present, much distrust on paying customers.

My situation: I buy many addon's without implementing it to a project; I need to experience using/modifying the package first before I propose it as a client and vouch for the delivery, it's possibilities and easy of use. More than 80% of my bought packages/licenses (100+) are currently unused. Some I implement maybe 2 years after I bought them. Package prices are just a small portion of full dev costs, I have no issue with buying multiple licenses, it's the correct and easy way to do things.

offtopic 5.6 - 5.7
The payed upgrade / having to buy new packages for 5.7 is an unforeseen situation for me which doesn't excite me at all and actually means that much of my, several thousands invested in, inventory is suddenly made worthless.

offtopic #2
@RadiantWeb; Although I absolutely appreciate your contributions to C5. I kindly ask you to express yourself a bit more civil / non-treatening to your fellow public community members.. You may be right, but I hope you can be at least moderately kind about it.. this is a public community and I would like it to remain attractive to the marketshare that's not with us yet.
If you do come to Amsterdam though, I'll join for that beer too :)
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
There's always different sides to any story, isn't there? Here we're seeing the developers perspectives & the very different customers perspective. @RobertJNL made some great points from the customer perspective that I'd like to share.

I have built a number of sites, but for a number of reasons I have bought far more add-ons (and even themes) than I actually ever used. One big reason was simply to learn. And I'd frequently take advantage of the Deal of The Day or other special offers, for the same reasons. To me, it was worth spending $15-40 and sometimes even $100 or more, to learn. And to evaluate.
One example is I have bought both the full eCommerce package by the core team, and the eCommerce Express by jb1 . Yet I have only actually used eCommerce Express in a site. I made enough on that site to pay for both (which is beside the point), but I have never attached the full eCommerce license to any site. Nor have I ever requested support for it.

So I too have a not insignificant cache of add-ons and some themes with unused licenses, most of which I have never requested support for.

As for what happens with 5.7, well that remains to be seen. Most of the add-ons and themes haven't even been updated yet. Who knows how much will actually get updated. And for whatever does, well some developers seem to be indicating they will give the upgrade at no additional charge (as it's been), while others are or will charge for a new license. I understand both sides there and think every one is a different situation, so I won't comment further about that, other than to say I hope I get to actually use a decent amount of what I've bought, such as the eCommerce package, at some point, and I hope to do so using 5.7 +.
My point is again to underscore what RobertJNL pointed out, there are those that buy and end up not using, these code products.

And also how convoluted and ill thought it would be to force some sort of system to force attaching a license (or especially @RadiantWeb idea of making functionality stop).
@Vidall said it best about trying to enforce based on a minority of dishonest people and in doing so penalizing the honest majority.
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
============
removed. not helpful. See your email if you're in this thread and care to read.
============
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
@ RadiantWeb You perspective is certainly enlightening, and perhaps necessarily shared. I still think trying to implement a system that stops functionality if a user doesn't attach a license to specific site (in any amount of time) is ill conceived. For reasons I already stated, and because
"if the problem is illegal use of software, the only way to stop that is to stop illegal use of software." is probably incorrect, in that you're focused on a problem, but not the problem that has caused all of what you are talking about in your post. Nor is it a solution to the bigger picture problems. And IMHO it would do more harm than good.

Anyway, thank you again for your eye opening perspective (although I now wish this entire thread was in the community leaders area only). You are understandably upset, and concerned, and probably a slew of other emotions.
RadiantWeb replied on at Permalink Reply
RadiantWeb
@OKDnet - removed. You're right.

C
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
I don't think what I shared is a "security weakness". Rather, I think it was done this way by design, to give people the option. If I thought otherwise, I probably would not have "broadcast" it.

Having said that, I agree the "Release From Project" button should be revisited (and brought back).
sully210 replied on at Permalink Reply
sully210
What is the proper folder location to put them in? packages? How will c5 know they are waiting to be installed or uninstalled at a later date?
Thanks
enlil replied on at Permalink Reply
enlil
in 5.6, yes, place your unzipped packages in the "packages" folder. It will then be available in the dashboard to install/uninstall.
sully210 replied on at Permalink Reply
sully210
Thanks alot.
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
In 5.7 it's also put in the Packages folder. Just make sure you're only using 5.7 compatible packages if your running 5.7+, and visa-versa.
VidalThemes replied on at Permalink Reply
VidalThemes
To try and get this back to reasonable ground, as its once again descended to farce.

As a marketplace developer, and on occasion marketplace customer, I can totally see each parties point of view, when someone uses a license more than once, it hits me in the pocket, it takes food off my table, it peeves me off, is it fair that I spend x amount of weeks or months building something, and someone gets to use it for infinity for next to nothing? no of course its not fair BUT what can you do, I dont want to see some kind of convoluted timing structure where the majority of decent customers get penalised just because a small minority are dishonest with licenses.

The fact of the matter is people steal stuff, always have and always will, you wont stop it, and frankly 15% loss is not bad in the bigger picture, as a small business owner my pricing structure accounts for a certain amount of loss that I know WILL happen.

Luckily the honest users outweigh the dishonest users, so having easy to understand licensing, benefits devs and customers, limits confusion, and ultimately increases sales, building in all kinds of time limits, restrictions, cut off points, "Move requests" all adds to non technical users being further alienated to the point that they will be too scared to make a purchase as they wont know if they are violating the license or not.

I think:

Keep it simple, regarding licenses, the old policy was ok, most people understood it, the ones who don't are not necessarily being dishonest, but may not be use to the workings of the software industry, they may have a shopper mentality, "I bought this thing, I can use it as much as i Like", the ones who flout the license will find a way to do it anyway.

Accept loss, theft of our items should be discouraged of course it should, but are you going to spend time and money chasing a few who abused licenses? what are you going to get out of them, they are not going to pay up, just concentrate on producing good products to sell to the decent people who support and buy our products.
Mainio replied on at Permalink Reply
Mainio
Spot on what I was thinking as well. Do not waste time chasing those 15%, they will always find a new way anyways.

Maybe add a simple reminder popup when disassociating or reassigning a licence that explains what the licenses are for and what disadvantages there are if they are misused (taking food off the table, getting lower level of support, getting less new features, etc.).

I don't think any timing or limiting barriers will do any good. As explained here by many of those from the customer perspective, there is no way to define a time limit that will suit each and every need. I'm with @Vidall that it should work as it always has been. Such limits would work better on SaaS products where the end user does not have access to the source code.

Our point of view, which I have also mentioned before: we're perfectly happy shipping bugfixes to people who bought the product 1 year ago. We're committed delivering quality products and want to guarantee they work. For new features / major rewrites (5.7), not so sure though, as they add something completely new.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
I agree that 1 license per project goes without saying, more than that is just theft - simple as! So I couldn't agree more with @Vidall except for; that the people who flout the rules should be told of their error, be given a opportunity to put it right, but persistent rule breakers should penalized. Possably being locked out of upgrades, support (including the community forum), or Concrete5 altogether for that matter.

Perhaps Franz, if you know who the people are who are not using the licenses properly then you should consider invoicing them, or shutting them down? At least the loyal, genuine customers wouldn't feel like they are having to pay the price for others.

But all that being said:

- 5 days is unrealistic to build a site to a position when it's ready to show a customer (I'm doing well if I've got some content from the customer in that time), expect them to be trained on it, test it and approve the add-on/theme. And if there's a problem with the add-on/theme during the build, it can often take longer than 5 days to get support from some developers, if at all.

- 60 days (or however many days) before being "hard associated" and only being released by the developer, I agree with @RobertJNL is unrealistic for all the reasons stated by him and I have some similar reasons too.

- As for @Frz suggestion of: "If you're moving a stage site or around different developer boxes, simply move a copy of the database with it and all instances will connect to the same project page. No need to release a license." Often some of the simplest, most basic things that developers and web designers take for granted are challenging for many C5 customers who have no coding and design background. So for them, even the mention of word "databases" is enough to strike panic, let alone moving a copy - so not majorly realistic fix for them. I can see the support/forum pages jammed lol!

-

So if the issue is of misuse of licenses. Then surely if it's possible add some code to "Hard Associate" add-ons and themes to ONE PROJECT, as @RadiantWeb suggested (which sounds like viable solution to this problem - on a project by project basis) and the developer is able to disassociate it, then why isn't possible to automate the same control the developer has in a "Release From Project" button for the end-user customer?

This wouldn't affect @RobertJNL internal intranet environments and similar people, as it wouldn't be connected anyway.

___________________________

OFF TOPIC:

- "Support"

I have no problem with the idea of "reasonable Pay As You Go" support after 30 or 60 days of assigning an add-on/theme to a project. Why shouldn't developers get paid for their time? However the caveat I'd like to add, is that I don't think it's fair to be charged for support for a bug in the developers code. I know I have had instances where the developer has told me there's no bug in his software after it didn't work following an upgrade, only to put it to the forum who told me it is a bug and what the problem in the code was and having wasted 2 weeks of my precious time, the developer said "...oh yeah my bad, it is a bug..."! This doesn't make me look very professional in front of my customers.

- "Upgrades"

Again, I have no problem with paying for upgrades for say; major changes to Concrete5 that effect the add-on or theme, or improvement to the functionality, that's understandable. But I don't think it's fair to charge us for everyday upgrades, because someone has spotted something that doesn't work and because of that the code is upgraded. Ideally it should work out of the box and as described in the first place, but I know it's not always possible for what you charge to cover every eventuality, but that doesn't mean we should pay if it doesn't work as advertised.
cmerritt replied on at Permalink Reply
cmerritt
I have been following this post from its humble beginings and watched it descend into the murky depths. I was pleased to see that some one has helped lift it back up.

I agree that the old system worked, but was open to abuse and those that abused it will find other ways.
I am a reasonably frequent market place customer and I have no problem in buying a few add ons for each project. I quite often buy an add on that may be of use, give it a try on one of my development sites and keep it in mind for a future project. I would say that at least 25% of the licenses purchased by me have not been used on a live site.
Another problem I have found is the number of broken links to demos of the add ons, very frustrating and difficult to fully assess if the addon is going to be useful. If the screen shots look promising and its not expensive, which very few add ons are, I will buy it and give it a go. Again some times they are perfect and other times they are not quite right for the project and are kept for later use. I also have copied add ons from one site to another development site, set them up, tested then purchased and assigned the required licenses prior to the site going live. If I find an add on that I know will used for many clients I purchase 5 at a time.

Because it was always easy to release a license, I have a number of un-used add ons assigned to sites that now require me to contact the developer to get released. Not complaining, just saying.

I believe that the easier you make purchasing and moving add ons, the more you will sell.
For every one that isn't paid for you may find many more that will be happy to do the right thing and pay.

What ever is decided, Please just keep it simple.


Colin
arlenesey replied on at Permalink Reply
arlenesey
Agree totally with this post. (cmerritt)
I spend sometimes up to two months in development - clients just aren't available, and work takes longer than you think.
5 days to decide if a theme is right? I laugh.
Am chagrined by the new rules and the people who abused the system, thus causing new rules. Shame on you!
Will try the suggestion of tallacman (below)


(off topic)

Love Concrete5 in spite of it all.
Thank you to all theme builders and add-on developers - and the C5 team - I really appreciate all the help you have given me the last 3 years, and look forward to working with you in the future.
tallacman replied on at Permalink Reply
tallacman
I dont assign licenses to projects. I develop websites for others. I will download whatever of the hundreds Ive purchased for the job at hand. Once the project is turned over complete I tell my client what they need to purchase the add on licence for themselves for it to work as designed.

Assigning licences is totally unnecessary. I would always test an update before installing on a live site.
odexcellence replied on at Permalink Best Answer Reply
This is a worthy discussion both from a software developer AND a customer point of view. It's the same issues that have challenged the independent software development world for over 35 years in one form or another.

I completely see the inequality of the support side of the issue from the developers' point of view. I don't think they should be expected to provide unlimited support, forever, for the small price they charge.

@frz (not #frz, needed to be sure I had that correct or might need to go to MT, and its starting to snow), you should consider separating "licensing" from "support". Right now the model is one license, and it should be able to be used anywhere once. That would mean if you unassign it from a project, it stops working on that project, literally on the site. That way customers are paying for 1 license and only using it in one place at a time and they can't move it around. Most of the add-ons aren't transient needs. But no need to assign it forever to that one site, that I can see. This preserves the developers' rights. Secondly, please, by all means, institute some staged support, e.g. free for 30-60 days from purchase, and then please setup a platform for paid support, or even annual plans, which would include upgrades if you are on a current maintenance plan. Developers deserve to be paid for their work and their support, and customers deserve to expect support, but should expect to pay for it. Especially in this market, where the add-ons cost so little, that IP should not come with free, unlimited support. If the developers make more $$, support quality should also improve since that will fund their operation and they should reinvest (again, maybe 15% won't just like the 15% that don't follow licensing in the theories of other posts on this topic, but we can't resolve all of the issues), and then the marketplace and reviews can help customers make informed decisions about the quality of the developer. If C5 continues to advance to be trusted by businesses, this will be funded and welcome.

So in summary @frz, highly recommend you a) split this into 2 issues, of licensing and support, and b) resolve this "release from project" issue at some point and put it back, but with the added functionality that if it is released it it no longer functions. Just as C5 connects to the marketplace at login to find out if there are add-on updates, there is already a query function into the project, and it could detect it is no longer assigned and disable it from working. This is some code, but worth the time, and protects the developers' rights to only employ one license, wherever they want, at a time, and allows the flexibility. Heck, the only reason I discovered this thread was because I was trying to clean up the site for turnover to other admins, and didn't want to have to explain why the Install page shows so many "download" items. Like an earlier poster in this thread, for $30, $50, or even $100, we purchase add-ons all the time to see if they work or we want them and if not, we just move on. That is just R&D cost from our perspective.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
I couldn't agree more with everything said on @odexcellence post and as long as I know what the support costs are going to be I can charge my customers appropriately. However I also think there should be a Pay As You Go option for support, as well as support packages.

@Frz it would be great to hear your thoughts on this please?
frz replied on at Permalink Reply
frz
We've added the release from project functionality back.

Assuming there will always be a handful of grey/black players, I'd rather them abuse the system through a mechanism we can track than make the system painful so they just download packages and they show up as torrents one day.

Beyond that, as my experience in running an open source project grows I see new value in things like word camp or drupal con. Giving major players in the scene have a chance to put a face to the name and have the type of real world conversations that build a better sense of empathy and understanding might lead to more positive online interactions.

Thx, happy turkey day for you states people.
Hypocrite replied on at Permalink Reply
Hypocrite
Huge +1 for this. Especially the Word Camp / Drupal Con part.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
That's great news @Frz, thank you.

And yes, I think it's really important to share ideas from every point of view in the Concrete5 community. Sometimes it does "feel like" it's just developers that are talked to when it comes to shaping Concrete5. I still love Concrete5 though and where else would you get the ear of the CEO, cheers bud.
OKDnet replied on at Permalink Reply
OKDnet
Awesome and ditto on all points!
kspitzley replied on at Permalink Reply
kspitzley
Hello,

I have a concern over the removal of support requests/resolutions past 30 days. I can often use those to solve a problem myself rather than bothering the developer. I have even been able to offer my own solutions through support to help others with similar issues. I'm wondering, what is the reason for hiding the older support requests? It's very frustrating when I can see that someone else had the exact same issue who has already solved it, but I can't see the solution. Likewise, the Support area is a good place to document a self-solved issue with an add-on that could potentially help others - I don't think these belong in the Chit-Chat forum (or similar) and would make most sense in the Support area of the add-on in question.

I totally get compensating developers for feature requests or functionality questions, I want developers to come to c5 and enjoy/profit from being a part of the community, but outright bugs should probably be supported as part of the purchase, and older requests should remain visible so we can troubleshoot ourselves and/or help others.

I have no idea if the c5 team is even considering keeping older support requests visible or if this is a done deal, but I really like c5 and want it to thrive, but this particular change has been troublesome for me.
Mainio replied on at Permalink Reply
Mainio
Same here, I don't think even we as the add-on authors can see the old support threads anymore... :(

We just got a support question that I swear has been answered before but now I cannot find it anywhere. Would sure save us some time if we knew how we solved it the last time.

EDIT: Never mind, too fast for me. I can see them if I just click the "Show Closed" checkbox.

But I'm still with you that these would probably be also useful for everyone else as well, if it is true that you cannot see them anymore.
TooqInc replied on at Permalink Reply
TooqInc
I'd agree with this one too.

From a customer perspective, being able to help myself by finding a thread with the exact same issue at 2:00 in the afternoon or 2:00 in the morning is important and helpful. What if the developer is flagged as "only answers every few weeks"? My clients aren't going to wait three weeks for Joe Developer to have a look at an issue. I was looking for a solution to something with a package the other day, found the thread that described the exact same problem and blammo, I was not able to access it. Terribly frustrating.

From a developer perspective, not that my stuff has sold enough to warrant a lot of support requests, this is a chance at some repeat income which sounds good on the surface. Unfortunately, it's a bit like churning out burgers all day, hard work, greasy, and low paying. It's the same thing over and over again, usually interrupting the work I really want to be doing, for a few bucks here and there. I'd rather that my support history be available for people to take care of themselves, and only have new or big problems interrupt me (and if you bought over XX days ago, then you can purchase support).

Just my $0.02
kspitzley replied on at Permalink Reply
kspitzley
Mainio - even checking show closed doesn't allow people beyond the developer or ticket owner to see the ticket, but it sounds like you, as the developer, can at least see everything.

My next question is how can I get this concern in front of the concrete5 team? I think hiding past solutions really undermines the idea of being an open-source community. I am fine with paying for additional support if it's a) not a bug, and b) hasn't already been solved in a way that I could implement myself. Developers should be compensated for their time...just not in a way that cripples a customer's ability to self-troubleshoot. And I hope most add-on developers are like myTooq, who are interesting in offering and being compensated for real help when its needed, not relying on restricting information so as to regurgitate common solutions and make a little extra money.
thebigideasman replied on at Permalink Reply
thebigideasman
@kspitzley I totally agree with everything you say and I too have no problem purchasing support on a "pay as you go" basis, assuming like you say it's not a bug.

Why shouldn't developer get paid for their time - that's only reasonable, and it'll encourage more developers to get involved and give a better and hopefully a faster (in some cases) level of service.