My comment for the blog post... which may or may not be approved.

It seems that by acquiring this module and taking this approach you HAVE left Xepient customers at a dead end.

They are no longer able to purchase this module to use for new clients, as they have done in the past!

I've read very little about this aquisition (this blog and a forum thread), but if DNN didn't want to maintain this as a stand-alone module, why acquire it?

Why not seek a license to use it within PE?

Now DNN Corp have rushed into such decisions, distancing itself even further from the CE community (the core that supported DNN to where it is today) why suggest DNN Corp is competing with module developers by merely offering a module for sale as it has been for years?

How does this change the module marketplace?

And if continuing to maintain and develop the module really could mean DNN Corp is competing where it doesn't want to, then simply don't.  Continue to make the module available as it has been in the past and say that no further versions are expected.  At least those Xepient customers you "won't" leave at a dead end can still access the module they have invested in and know the future for it wil be limited.

When you license a third party component, it means that you need to need to rely on the capability and stability of a third party vendor for everything related to that component. This includes things like the roadmap for future enhancements, release schedule, quality assurance, issue management, customer support, etc... Since the goal with our Professional Edition product is to offer a complete solution to customers, it becomes very challenging to deliver this if we are dependent on a multitude of third parties. Therefore, the only potentially viable licensing option for us would have been a dual copyright scenario where Xepient retained their rights to the IP and DNN Corp also acquired full rights so we could modify and redistribute it. However, there are a variety of complications to this approach as well - not the least of which is the fact that Xepient actually wanted to sell the IP to us. I am not sure if anyone has considered this scenario, but there are many module vendors in the DNN ecosystem who are thinking strategically about their business in terms of their future financial opportunities. There is a significant amount of time and effort required to build a serious module business, and although the cash flow is important in the short term, not everyone approaches it as a long-term "lifestyle" business - some are looking for opportunities to convert their equity and goodwill into cash. And its hard to blame them for being entrepreneurial. In our discussions with Xepient, it was very clear that they wanted to focus more effort on building their consultancy business and they viewed a module acquisition as a highly beneficial outcome for the time and effort they had invested in developing these products.

If the Corp doesn't want to be module vendor, why not sub-contracting another company to further maintain, develop and sell the product? From what I understand when readin through the posts is that all the commnunity wants is to not loose a good value module on the market. The corp on the other hand doesn't want to become a module vendor, nor does Xepient stay a vendor any longer. This might be tricky in terms of IP but I'm sure there must be solution.