ergophobe - 3:58 pm on Sep 30, 2010 (gmt 0)
>>So its not the only open source .NET CMS!
I think of DotNetNuke as the traditional leader in the open source .NET CMS space. Not necessarily the best, I wouldn't know about that as I've never used a .NET CMS, but the most widely recognized - sort of the Joomla of .NET I guess.
From a marketing standpoint, DNN is more like Expression Engine used to be than Joomla though. There's a community edition which is free and open source, but missing some features (advanced workflow, granular permissions, and other professional features). If you want those features, you need a paid license. They make it really hard to find the price, since the pro edition is only sold through partners/affiliates it seems, but it's $2000/year/install, $5000/year/install with "elite support". With elite support you get access to all source code, even the proprietary stuff.
I don't know how it compares to Umbraco in terms of functionality, but Umbraco has a similar model - 800 euros for the cheapest pro license.
Composite is different from these:
Composite C1 is not crippled, it's not limited and you don't have to buy in to some proprietary license to get the important features.
So Composite really is on a Joomla/Drupal model, though under the Mozilla Public License, not the GPL. The main difference between the MPL and the GPL is
Any changes to MPLed files, or new files into which MPLed code has been copied, are Modifications and so fall under the MPL. New files containing only your code are not Modifications, and not covered by the MPL.
Under the GPL, even if it's all your code, but it only functions as a component of the GPL program, the module you create must also be GPL as we know from the recent flap b/w Wordpress and DIYThemes [webmasterworld.com]