Microsoft based CMS Composite.net goes Open Source!

Established CMS-vendor Composite goes Open Source with FREE download.

[Rumbas]

Breaking news: Cutting edge Microsoft based CMS developer releases the first FREE Open Source CMS based on .NET [composite.net<...]

COPENHAGEN, September, 2010 – Until recently, Danish developer Composite have been distributing the company’s professional content management system – Composite C1 – on commercial terms. But now Composite has decided to go open source and allow anyone to download and use the complete product for free.

Composite C1 allow website builders to get a user friendly CMS up and running fast and allow for customizations via free and commercial packages as well as tools targeting both frontend and backend developers. .NET developers can use technologies like .NET 4, LINQ, ASP.NET Controls and MVC while frontend developers are capable of completing many more tasks than they usually can in a CMS.

- The whole mindset behind Composite C1 as a .NET-based product was originally to make it successful on the commercial marketplace – which it is on a regional basis. This background bring a much more intuitive and user-friendly experience to market than other Open Source based CMS-alternatives. Actually, I think we’re one of the very first companies worldwide to convert a fully-featured, commercial .NET-based CMS into an Open Source project, says partner Oskar Lauritzen, Composite.

- Our Open Source initiative aims at making Composite C1 accessible worldwide to a significantly larger population of companies and organizations. At the same time, it gives us a tremendous opportunity to widen the base of developers working to strengthen the product as well as to develop C1 add-ons of their own, he continues.

With a history spanning the last decade, Composite is already regarded as a proven and experienced commercially focused developing house, “so it’s perfectly understandable if our venture into Open Source will raise a few eyebrows out there,” says Oskar Lauritzen.

But not so amongst the company’s existing paying customers, who backs the initiative unanimously. Even Microsoft, who has lent significant developing support to the C1-project during the last three years, feels that the initiative is a pretty good idea.

- Composite’s Open Source initiative is really remarkable and exciting. First and foremost because it makes good sense to open up the code of a .NET-based product, as there’s simply so many gifted developers out there who’s already familiar with the platform, says Ole Kjeldsen, Enterprise & Platforms Director, Microsoft Denmark.

- Actually, I think that Composite is one of the really interesting developing houses to follow right now, concludes Ole Kjeldsen.

In the near future, Composite will establish a marketplace where professional developers can cooperate on Composite C1 add-ons and make them commercially or freely available, depending on which model makes the best sense from the developer’s perspective.

Further comments, please contact: Oskar Lauritzen, CEO, Composite

About Composite
Composite is a Danish-based developing house. The company’s core product, C1, is a modular CMS based on the latest edition of Microsoft .NET. C1 is distributed under the Mozilla Public License.
[composite.net...]

[Rumbas]

Get the Open Source code right here:
[bit.ly...]

[BillyS]

Wow, that is a very smart move by Microsoft.

[flood6]

Wow, that is a very smart move by Microsoft.

It's not Microsoft doing it; the CMS is based on Microsoft's .NET.

The company I work for was recently looking at using Umbraco for the site's redesign because it seemed to be the leading .NET opensource CMS. We aren't going in that direction anymore, but does anyone have experience with both Umbraco and Composite C1? Any preference between the two?

[graeme_p]

So its not the only open source .NET CMS!

It does not run on an open source stack so does not seem to have any particular appeal for people who particularly want to use open source.

It might be free to use but Windows hosting tends to be expensive so it is not likely to appeal to people who want free of cost.

It only seems to be more than just another CMS if you particularly want a dot net CMS: even if you want to run Windows and IIS you can still run PHP and Python based CMS's - you have to want dot net in particular.

[ceestand]

graeme_p, true, there are other .Net CMS' out there.

The reason a developer would want to run Windows and IIS is for .Net. The framework is great, and the appeal of an open source CMS is that the CMS is free for people who want or need to use the Microsoft stack.

[ergophobe]

>>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.

source: [composite.net...]

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.

source: [mozilla.org...]

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]

[graeme_p]

The reason a developer would want to run Windows and IIS is for .Net.

People do run Windows and IIS with PHP etc.

The framework is great, and the appeal of an open source CMS is that the CMS is free for people who want or need to use the Microsoft stack.

Certainly. My point is that that the particular combination of requirements that this would be a particularly good fit for (i.e. better than the mass of other CMSs out there) is a fairly narrow one.

@ergophobe, so the MPL is somewhat like the LGPL? The difference does not matter for someone who wants to deploy it on a website, only to a developer who wants to sell extensions or modified versions. In that case there are BSD licensed CMSs (I do not know if there are any for .net though) would be better, as there is no obligation to share code.

Incidentally, I have no sympathy for the Wordpress proprietary theme developers. They knew it was a grey area at best. In the particular case that flap was about they were using GPLed code from Wordpress itself in their themes.

[flood6]

In my case, the company I work for is a MS shop, but they were willing to entertain opensource CMS options as long as they were .NET because most of the developers have experience with that; I'm the only LAMP guy that touches our site.

I still got a lot a lot of the "we don't want opensource because it isn't as secure" stuff from IT. I just facepalm'd and tried to persuade them, but nobody's going to take the "SEO guy's" word over the IT director's.

Thanks for the info, ergophobe.

[ergophobe]

I don't know the exact ins and outs of the licenses, but my understanding is that MPL is between LGPL and BSD, but closer to LGPL, but that may well be wrong. My very poor understanding is that on a scale that moves from "copyleft" to "copyright" the order would be GPL -> LGPL, -> MPL -> BSD

They're all open source, but GPL is "strong copyleft", LGPL and MPL are "weak copyleft" and BSD is "copyright"

Incidentally, I have no sympathy for the Wordpress proprietary theme developers. They knew it was a grey area at best. In the particular case that flap was about they were using GPLed code from Wordpress itself in their themes.

Ha! Let's not go there! My opinion is too well-known (one has a legal obligation to respect whatever license is in force, like it or not) and I wasted too much time in the thread devoted to that topic [webmasterworld.com].

One minor point though that is germane to the current discussion (choosing an open source .NET CMS- the whole flap erupted before anyone realized that Thesis had copied hundreds of lines of code and was on the more abstract issue of extensions that interface with a GPL program - something people evaluating developing for an OS platform would do well to understand.

[graeme_p]

@flood6, that is an entirely reasonable case for using this, because they are already know the platform. I just feel that this is being treated as more of a big deal than it is: it just means that there is one more open source CMS for that particular platform. Good, but hardly earth-shaking.

I think stuff like "open source is insecure" usually means "I do not want to learn anything new" or "nobody every got fired for buying Microsoft".

@ergophobe, I would word that as going from copyleft to "waived copyright". The next step from a BSD style license would be public domain (not common for software, but there are some examples around).

Regarding the obligations when writing exceptions, the first question is whether it is a derivative work: if you were writing the extension to a proprietary program would you need to check the license? If so, check the terms that apply to the open source one as well. Proprietary software may have contractual obligations as well, which complicates matters.

What the GPL allows can depend on architecture and method of distribution. GPL v2 says:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

So you can do things like writing a GPL interface to your proprietary code. This is one section of the GPL that I find a bit unclear, and GPL v3 does not seems to have much narrower limits on this.

[ergophobe]

So you can do things like writing a GPL interface to your proprietary code.

Yes but you can't write a proprietary interface to a GPL application. There is a specific exception for hooking into runtime libraries in a programming language.

So if you want to build a custom app for internal use that extends a GPL app (like a module for a GPLed CMS), that extension has to be GPL.

That's typically where people get into trouble and why some people complain that the GPL "contaminates everything it touches", which could be an issue in flood6's situation (if, for example, you were a dev shop and wanted to have proprietary "added value" extensions, they would have to be GPL).

[graeme_p]

What I meant by that is you can put your proprietary code in a separate work (ideally run it in a separate process), and write a (GPL) extension that communicates with your proprietary code.

I suspect the GPL 33 is a bit stricter about this because it IS a loophole.

So if you want to build a custom app for internal use that extends a GPL app (like a module for a GPLed CMS), that extension has to be GPL.

Not if its purely for internal use. If it does not leave your organisation then it has not been distributed (the GPL 2 term) or conveyed (the GPL 3 term) so there is no one you have any obligations to under the GPL.