Florent Guillaume Ok, thanks for clarification. But I think then what changed from 2014 to 2016 is that the registration (except for the 30days trial, but that's not relevant for regular production case) is not free anymore (as Julien explained below). I read that differently in the post of 2014.

Having just browsed the forum a bit more, I think what was a bit unclear to some users (incl. me) is that "registration is free" statement… yes, sure, registration is free, but only for the trial. A trial period is not relevant for production use, therefore I think it was a bit misleading. I found that others had the same questions: https://answers.nuxeo.com/general/q/f975b4965c75452084077d644766eb32/Do-i-have-to-register-for-get-the-hotfix, https://answers.nuxeo.com/general/q/765d766a986e4a2b8a2a06bb9f6c77e2/Are-Hotfix-free Anyway, understand it now.

You may want to re-read https://doc.nuxeo.com/nxdoc/registering-your-nuxeo-instance/. Getting a Nuxeo Online Services (NOS) account is free and gives you access to a one-month trial of all the Marketplace features that include easy package upgrades. A NOS account gives you a way to register your Nuxeo instances with the Nuxeo Online Services servers so that package updates can be automated. After the one-month period you lose the benefit of the Marketplace, except for the packages that Nuxeo has decided should be available even without a contract (actual customer or one-month trial).

Ok, thanks for clarification! (Not clear about the download button though. Obviously manual installation does not provide hotfixes, but this goes for JSF UI addon as well as for the multi-tenant addon. If it's not recommended to do this for the multi-tenant addon, it should also not be recommended for the JSF UI addon.)

What is not recommended is to use an instance to do some install and transfer the files to an another instance.

The download button should be available on all "public" packages. The same list of package as what you get from an unregistered server with the command ./bin/nuxeoctl mp-listall |grep -v "Registration required"

Yes, sure, not via the marketplace methods mp-install, since marketplace functionality should not be available if unregistered. I meant, just taking the package (the one under /opt/nuxeo/server/tmp/ after a download, or when building it from the git repo - if that actually builds a package and not just a 'plain' jar, not tested that) and uploading it via the regular Nuxeos Admin section manually. That works fine, i.e. for the multi-tenant package. Doesn't necessarily have to be another instance: same is the case when a client tests the Studio and registration addons during trial, then decides not to subscribe. He would still be able to use the previously downloaded addons. I think from a legal perspective, even without problems. Just want to be very clear about the licensing details to the clients upfront, before running in circles and argumentation dead-ends myself (assuming the clients are tech-savvy).

Yes of course, there is no trap :) Only the service is limited in time, depending on a paid subscription when the trial ends. If the subscription expires, the already downloaded addons are still usable, only no more automatically upgraded or fixed.

Right. The original questions of this post remains though. Why do only some addons have a download button? This makes it unnecessary difficult for users to get and install it, if they can do it in the above mentioned way anyway. I was thinking of putting up a github repo as a mirror to put the public packages (binaries) there, cause then you could do an easy wget and get them directly, otherwise it's a bit inconvenient. Ok, basic auth seems to work as well, so that should do it, even for automation processes, just need to put some credentials somewhere (still, there is no benefit for a registration if a user is not a subscriber anyway).

This wouldn’t be very welcome at all as it conflict with our commercial strategy (which enable us to write the software). We like open source for the collaboration it enables, not for free riders. In addition third-party repositories like this would have no assurance of quality or even legitimacy for a third-party user.

This doesn't make much sense. It's like obfuscatiing or just not providing information in order to make users subscribe who don't really need a subscription - hiding LGPL addons behind a registration wall, where the download instructions (using mp-install wouldn't even work), even though the addon is free itself. So the main purposes of the required registration even for LGPL addons is to get the email addresses in order to follow-up with sales processes? Understandable, but on the other hand, who doesn't want leads? It has nothing to do with free riders (there is not even an option to purchase a single addon - except for going for a $88k subscription). So anybody with a commercial interested would get a bunch of LGPL addons (I mean, the license says it already, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.en.html), put it behind a doorway page with registration form, in order to get some leads. Who wouldn't want it? I mean, that in the commercial interest of any player in the ecosystem, not only the vendor. This argument does not convince me. The argument about quality, legitimacy IMHO does not matter to end-users too much, the same goes for any mirror servers of any Apache project. Clients care that the project/system works, they don't care about technical details, just as they don't care where any installed MySql5.x or Tomcat7.x binaries or any other widely used tech components is coming from as long as it gets the job done as contracted. If it's a trusted source with enough references, it doesn't matter on what servers the packages are hosted. Dont' get me wrong, I've nothing against commercial licensing and addons and have done commercial projects as a previous Alfresco platinum partner, and surely, vendors need to have a financial backing in order to be able to put more effort in R&D, but not making LGPL addons available or not providing the information how to install them without a subscription is just obfuscating information, it has nothing to do with commercial strategy - the latter would apply to non-LGPL/AL addons or services.

I'm sorry but mvn package is not obfuscation.

Julien Carsique Thanks for your explanation. I am trying to understand the logic, but I don't get it yet fully, despite the description. The reason for asking is in order to know what to offer in client projects and to know what needs to be licensed and what not. Can you be specific about i.e. the multi-tenant addon vs. the JSF UI addon, just to give an example. Is the multi-tenant addon public or restricted? I saw that it's under the LGPL 2.1 license. I know about "free" and "open", according to the FSF, and therefore I am especially confused about it. Since the multi-tenant module is open source (LGPL 2.1) and you would get all updates directly from the github, it would include all hotfixes at some point in time (if not right away) as well, I'd assume (or is there a separate parallel branch for hotfixes?). What would be the issue that could occur here, just as an example? I can see that you would eventually not get hotfixes right away, ok, but let's stay it's a pretty stable and old addon, where hotfixes might not be critical. That's about the only benefit I see (for free, open source LGPL addons). Then on the other hand, why would that argument (users should be aware of hotfixes) not be the same for the JSF UI.

"I highly discourage such a practice: at one time, you will get in troubles. Being it with updates, hotfixes" -> if it's not recommended, why offer the download button for JSF UI but not for multi-tenant. It's not very clear. Users should install the JSF UI via marketplace package, not manually either.

Since I am new to Nuxeo (coming from the Alfresco-side and having moved to Nuxeo as the platform of choice), I am trying to understand the ecosystem a bit better. But I think the reasoning is a bit unclear for some of the addons. What would be the legal issue for a LGPL software? (As mentioned by Florent, it's ok to compile, and I would assume then also deploy, the code themselves). Thanks for clarification!

Update: I found an older reply in the forum of https://answers.nuxeo.com/general/q/765d766a986e4a2b8a2a06bb9f6c77e2/Are-Hotfix-free, that explains the benefits. Still I am not sure if the benefits justify the subscriptions fees for all customers (47k just to get hotfixes for one single addon. In another post I found something about 3k, but I have not idea how he got that number. Probably not relevant anymore as it is 5 years old: https://answers.nuxeo.com/general/q/765d766a986e4a2b8a2a06bb9f6c77e2/Are-Hotfix-free).

Is it correct that in order to just get hotfixes for the multi-tenant addon (assume that's the only additional addon the client needs), and if the client would not need any other restricted/commercial addon or technical service, it would cost 47,000 EUR / year, or what would be the cost?(http://web.archive.org/web/20160702233214/http://www.nuxeo.com/products/pricing/) (To be realistic, in such a case, a client would probably avoid to pay 47K per year and live with not having hotfixes right away, especially if it's a stable addon.) In the end, it's open source and fixes could be done by the client itself - that's the whole point of open source. That's just my point here, if I am right about the pricing.

I'm not the right person to explain those considerations in details but yes, it's all about a balance between the cost of DIY and the subscription fees. Nuxeo offers its services as whole packages including hotfixes, Studio, consulting, support, etc. There are various degrees but no small offer focused on a unique addon.

Ok, thanks for the info.