Some recourse to recoup funds from nonresponsive add-on developers
jauburn
Well-known member
I'm glad someone recognizes the importance of this. "Buyer beware" is not a policy built for longevity.
Liam W
in memoriam 1998-2020
Sounds like a good idea. Will it be open to all developers, or only the ones you're currently communicating with?
Liam
It will be open to anyone who sells a paid addon.
Bespoke
Well-known member
So if the group of developers take over an abandoned paid add-on will they continue to charge for it? Charge for updates?
If you do continue to charge for the add-on, how will the profits be divided? If the original developer is AWOL how will you get the list of current customers?
Will one developer take over or will it be a group effort with each add-on? If its a group effort then will you have a set of coding standards to abide by as most developers have their own style and so standards might differ.
Mouth
Well-known member
Who's the 'us' in "ever need us to step in"?
If an add-on needs real fixes, and you have wait 6 mths since the author went AWOL, then I argue the guarantee will be too late.
Often we see add-on authors leave, pass on their code to others, but the new dev says it too ****e and too hard to maintain and we get nothing anyway. How will the Addons Gurarantee people deal with this scenario?
To be honest, I think it would be much more of a 'guarantee' if the terms of submitting an add-on or style to XF RM was that the dev agreed that the license for the add-on/style was automatically transferred to a GNU GPL if the author no longer was active. Eg, when a resource is marked unmaintained or deleted under current RM review/housekeeping processes.
Ozzy47
Well-known member
Yeah, seen to many addons taken over by groups or individuals, and the only update the addon gets is a price increase, or charge for a previously free addon. Sure sometimes the addons get the love they need, but many times not.
If I was developing for XF, I doubt I would participate in the group option, nor having my addon transferred to a GNU GPL, but then again, I did not charge for any of my vB addons.
EQnoble
Well-known member
I feel like much of the solutionary thinking in this thread is only a fix for one side of the coin and that coin only fits in one kind of slot.
The logic there is that all addons are promised support when in reality in an open economy with no 'all party signed agreements' there is no such thing even for a paid product. What about an addon with only a handful of small functions that is sold for a small price and never promised to be updated (outside of discovered security flaws) nor any support promised?
I have bought plenty of software where I can not contact anyone directly to get help with a problem even if the problem was caused by the software author/firm and yeah it sucks but that's what I get when I chose to buy a 15 dollar title instead of the 3000 dollar software suite.
People may say I am siding with developers here but I assure you that I am not, I am siding with free will. I don't think that Xenforo as a company should even consider requiring support be provided by software authors and if anything, only require at the time of submission of said resource for an author to select an additional option in the form for support status (forum support, paid support contracts, paid support tickets, direct contact, or no support) so that they must state it in public (on the addon's main description block) before listing and so that someone who never intended to offer support and openly states so doesn't get bashed with everyone else on that bus. (READ: not maintained is not the same as not supported...support is for people and maintenance is for the software)
The whole nature of a freelancer is that they don't want anyone telling them how to run their business, even a contractor who comes into your home and does work on it will tell you when you lean into him that you can tell him what you want him to do as long as you can pay but you will never be able to tell him how to do his job.
Apply that here and you make an environment a bit too involved for your hobbyist, way too stuffy for your average freelancer and unappealing to many drive-by-devs who end up at this site one way or the other and either choose to check it out or close the tab in under a minute.
I feel like it will shrink the pool of developers here and provide little incentive for more to swell the pond and if whole new protocols are to be established in order to curb disputes I feel that it is only prudent to try not to add new problems by making a system that forces authors to conform to something that by all rights should conform to software devs in a way that is dynamic as the group that they are.
Ok time to stop thinking and go back to my brain vacation.
The logic there is that all addons are promised support when in reality in an open economy with no 'all party signed agreements' there is no such thing even for a paid product. What about an addon with only a handful of small functions that is sold for a small price and never promised to be updated (outside of discovered security flaws) nor any support promised?
I have bought plenty of software where I can not contact anyone directly to get help with a problem even if the problem was caused by the software author/firm and yeah it sucks but that's what I get when I chose to buy a 15 dollar title instead of the 3000 dollar software suite.
People may say I am siding with developers here but I assure you that I am not, I am siding with free will. I don't think that Xenforo as a company should even consider requiring support be provided by software authors and if anything, only require at the time of submission of said resource for an author to select an additional option in the form for support status (forum support, paid support contracts, paid support tickets, direct contact, or no support) so that they must state it in public (on the addon's main description block) before listing and so that someone who never intended to offer support and openly states so doesn't get bashed with everyone else on that bus. (READ: not maintained is not the same as not supported...support is for people and maintenance is for the software)
The whole nature of a freelancer is that they don't want anyone telling them how to run their business, even a contractor who comes into your home and does work on it will tell you when you lean into him that you can tell him what you want him to do as long as you can pay but you will never be able to tell him how to do his job.
Apply that here and you make an environment a bit too involved for your hobbyist, way too stuffy for your average freelancer and unappealing to many drive-by-devs who end up at this site one way or the other and either choose to check it out or close the tab in under a minute.
I feel like it will shrink the pool of developers here and provide little incentive for more to swell the pond and if whole new protocols are to be established in order to curb disputes I feel that it is only prudent to try not to add new problems by making a system that forces authors to conform to something that by all rights should conform to software devs in a way that is dynamic as the group that they are.
Ok time to stop thinking and go back to my brain vacation.
sbj
Well-known member
I also think that customers need better protection. There was a similar request from another user a while ago, so it seems this is a recurring problem. For me the RM needs a bit of rework to display better the bad apples from the good ones.
But to be fair, it is not like that XF doesn't try to protect the customers. There was also recently this update, so XF does try to protect people.
Slavik's idea and try is also great. It is really refreshing to know that some devs care for the community and try to maintain a healthy environment for all. I hope your idea gets live, although I think with its current form it will be hard to accomplish such a group.
@EQnoble
I don't think that XF requires support be provided by software author, and neither any user asked for a such thing in this thread or anywhere else from what I see.
I think you missed the point in your whole comment.
Cause from what I know and see, all paid addons come with support. I've not seen a single paid addon, where the author stated that he won't support his addon and we should buy with this keeping in mind. Your whole point is based on the premise that many devs might not have promised any support. But this is exactly the point here, they do promise, most of the people even ask for yearly renewals. But at the same time most devs disappear for months with no sign of coming back.
And technically in the EU laws is stated that to all customers are a 2 years of warranty promised, whether people like it or not.
Realistically nobody will take a dev to court for a 15$ addon, and in most cases the dev and user will live in different countries anyway, which makes it even more unrealistic.
But exactly because of that, exactly because of this hole in the system that devs have nothing to fear, that is why the platform itself must try its best to protect the customers. Cause there are no boundaries at all (a bit exaggerated), no other places or instances you could go. The only reliable way of not letting developers exploiting the system is the platform-giver, which is XF. I am not expecting or saying that XF should audit codes or developers, which wouldn't be possible anyway. Just trying to explain that XF must have a responsibility when they allow developers to use the RM, which XF does without doubt. The question is just, what could XF do better? They try already their best to keep the market as good as it is possible, but all systems and markets in the world have weaknesses. So trying to make the system better is all what we all want.
But to be fair, it is not like that XF doesn't try to protect the customers. There was also recently this update, so XF does try to protect people.
Slavik's idea and try is also great. It is really refreshing to know that some devs care for the community and try to maintain a healthy environment for all. I hope your idea gets live, although I think with its current form it will be hard to accomplish such a group.
@EQnoble
I don't think that XF requires support be provided by software author, and neither any user asked for a such thing in this thread or anywhere else from what I see.
I think you missed the point in your whole comment.
Cause from what I know and see, all paid addons come with support. I've not seen a single paid addon, where the author stated that he won't support his addon and we should buy with this keeping in mind. Your whole point is based on the premise that many devs might not have promised any support. But this is exactly the point here, they do promise, most of the people even ask for yearly renewals. But at the same time most devs disappear for months with no sign of coming back.
And technically in the EU laws is stated that to all customers are a 2 years of warranty promised, whether people like it or not.
Realistically nobody will take a dev to court for a 15$ addon, and in most cases the dev and user will live in different countries anyway, which makes it even more unrealistic.
But exactly because of that, exactly because of this hole in the system that devs have nothing to fear, that is why the platform itself must try its best to protect the customers. Cause there are no boundaries at all (a bit exaggerated), no other places or instances you could go. The only reliable way of not letting developers exploiting the system is the platform-giver, which is XF. I am not expecting or saying that XF should audit codes or developers, which wouldn't be possible anyway. Just trying to explain that XF must have a responsibility when they allow developers to use the RM, which XF does without doubt. The question is just, what could XF do better? They try already their best to keep the market as good as it is possible, but all systems and markets in the world have weaknesses. So trying to make the system better is all what we all want.
Last edited:
EQnoble
Well-known member
As I said before I am on a cerebral getaway so don't mind the demeanor of the response.
Whether or not they don't promise support that is irrelevant to the fact that people will ask in the thread and after six months per the below quote if you follow a programmatic regimen a resource will change ownership so yes that would be XF saying you have to support, respond, and/or update.
I understand you are about seeing things become better, that is the nature of progress and as I am for progress I felt the need to show my opposing views on certain philosophies and how in my opinion some of the plans could have a negative effects and reverse progress if carried out as stated which as a net result would take away more in the long run than add substance.
The problem with protecting people in the case here is similar to the problems of a tightrope walker in that you have to establish a net that can break a fall and at the same time not eject you with equal force in the polar opposite direction. When you make a net too tight it becomes a membrane where nothing can pass through to come in or go out and with that line of thinking you can understand the concern I hinted at vaguely if you take the time to extrapolate everything I am not actually saying.
The nature of planning out a functional system is doing simulations whether it be in functional code or in thought based situational analysis and that is what I was thinking out. Simulations and testing is what makes the difference between a clunker and a well oiled machine.
Whether or not they don't promise support that is irrelevant to the fact that people will ask in the thread and after six months per the below quote if you follow a programmatic regimen a resource will change ownership so yes that would be XF saying you have to support, respond, and/or update.
So as to missing the point of my own comment I would prefer to think in terms of underscore and deliver bottom line.
And where I am at folks are promised nothing of the sort so from my view that doesn't even apply and to be honest I will put it in writing that I don't think it ever will. My state is one of the most highest taxed highest cost of living states and I don't even have to pay taxes on anything having to do specifically with a website so our respective countries have quite a different stance on these things.
I understand you are about seeing things become better, that is the nature of progress and as I am for progress I felt the need to show my opposing views on certain philosophies and how in my opinion some of the plans could have a negative effects and reverse progress if carried out as stated which as a net result would take away more in the long run than add substance.
The problem with protecting people in the case here is similar to the problems of a tightrope walker in that you have to establish a net that can break a fall and at the same time not eject you with equal force in the polar opposite direction. When you make a net too tight it becomes a membrane where nothing can pass through to come in or go out and with that line of thinking you can understand the concern I hinted at vaguely if you take the time to extrapolate everything I am not actually saying.
The nature of planning out a functional system is doing simulations whether it be in functional code or in thought based situational analysis and that is what I was thinking out. Simulations and testing is what makes the difference between a clunker and a well oiled machine.
sbj
Well-known member
Nah, all good
.It is relevant if they promise or not. Cause by law you are bound to the agreement you made. So it is a huge difference if you say that you support the product or that you don't.
That people will ask in threads for help nonetheless is true, but at least if nobody promised anything then people can't be upset or feel left alone. It makes a difference for the reputation of XF. I don't think XF wants to be known as the platform where people are often upset about developers. This is not good for the community, XF and developers. Nobody profits from a place where people are mad.
And what Slavik suggested is not an official thing. I don't understand how you see this "programmatic regimen" as if XF is saying you have to support it. XF doesn't say it at all.
In Slavik's suggestion developers themselves would freely choose to do so, without someone saying it, which would be awesome if something like that could be done (I don't believe it will).
Maybe this is one of the reasons why people have different opinions about this topic. I mean as you describe your situation is completely different than the situation here in EU, which means we have naturally different kind of standards.
I see your standpoint. Nothing wrong with that. Obviously not only the state of customers matters, so it is also important to make sure that the state of developers is taken care of.
Your metaphor is perfectly understandable and I can extrapolate it.
But don't you think, that in this case, in most of the times, the side who got burned the most were the customers and not the devs? I mean there are multiple examples of how badly users were treated. So the net better be too tight than too loose from now on. I know it is difficult to find the balance and if the net is too tight that it will scare devs off. There are already not many devs left who are (semi)active. But this is not related to what we are talking here. That is another problem and it should also be taken care of, that this community should seek for solutions of how to make the pool bigger and attractive. But not at someone's expense. Just because to make it attractive for devs, we shouldn't ignore the problems of users.
The whole idea behind the service is not so much a black and white line, or a way out plan, but more a commitment/agreement of principals from the dev that they are going to act in the way best for their customers and stand by their products. The general hope is that the service will never need to step in, but be there if something unexpected does happen.
As for concerns about the service, its simple, if the dev doesn't want to sign up to it, they don't.
Currently it is simply just an idea thats being spitballed around, and may not even come to happen (by me anyway) as my own time is being taken up with the app.
Bespoke
Well-known member
Its a nice idea. Just seems a little too complicated to execute properly.
The most challenging unknown in taking over a semi random add-on is the quality of the code you end up inheriting as sometimes its just easier to start over again from scratch.
Something might be worked out if all involved are volunteers willing to provide their talents in a timely manner but heading such a group would provide its own challenges.
Not trying to be negative here, just realistic. Its a great idea if all the details (and there are many) are worked out.
Dakota Storm
Well-known member
I don't believe it's changed. That law only applies to physical goods.
sbj
Well-known member
Sorry, I almost forgot to respond.
Yeah, I should not put Germany as the center of the EU.
. Usually common German laws are also used in the EU, but not in this case.Which means what I said is only applicable in Germany, see (in German).
But I have bad news for you guys
.Brussels, 9 December 2015
"Commission proposes modern digital contract rules to simplify and promote access to digital content and online sales across the EU"
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6264_en.htm
which means
"Supplier's liability for defects: If the digital content is defective, the consumer can ask for a remedy. There will be no time limit to the supplier's liability for such defects, because -unlike goods- digital content is not subject to wear and tear."
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-6265_en.htm
Current progress (April 2016):
For detailed information:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/581980/EPRS_BRI(2016)581980_EN.pdf
Last edited:
Steve F
Well-known member
And if a dev doesn't agree to being part of this, they are now seen as an outcast if they are not part of this "group". Seems unhealthy, at least to those that do not want to be part of it.
I also don't think a "group" has the right to virtually conglomerate and put standards in place others may not agree with. This seems to go against the open market that has been in place here since the beginning of XenForo.
sbj
Well-known member
Similar threads
