Talk:Alfresco Software

message: "The Alfresco product has a lean, modular component architecture that allows new functionality to be added without any system disruption and is significantly faster than proprietary commercial systems." - Is this POV or is there actual data to substantiate that there is no system disruption and that it is faster than (which?ll?) commercial systems?  --Davidp 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these quotes are no longer present, Can the advert warning be removed? Rjohnson19 (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Alfresco product

message: The Alfresco CMS recently switched to the GNU General Public License. Due the switch the company wants to insure that the code will stay open - or as Marketing-Manager Matt Asay said, "We want that the code is bigger than the company." For now the company decided to stay under the "GPL2 only" version of the license. A change to the GPLv3, currently under development, is later possible, said Alfresco.
Source: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85796
: It seems they are planning on moving to LGPL: http://newton.typepad.com/content/2010/01/a-shift-in-alfresco-community-license-to-lgpl.html Rjohnson19 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfresco goes GPL 

message: I just went to Alfresco's website and it indicates that you can download trial versions for 30 days and it also has the option to contact the sales team for pricing information. Is this still a free software or have they moved to some other license? Could somebody please clarify? Golebara (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke on the phone to them today.  It is not free.  About the minimum, for a small user, is $50 per chair per month; and for larger enterprises they want about $50,000 per CPU. Rengewwj (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a free version called "Alfresco Labs".  It takes a bit to find it, though.  Last I checked, it was available here.216.162.166.106 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alfresco now only offers a commercial Enterprise Edition and a open source LABS Edition. As Alfresco states on their comparison site both are open source, but only LABS is GPL licensed. Because GNU does not allow for the commercial part to be called open source in the GNU sense the article must be amended. Because LABS is more like an Alpha or Beta for the next release it should be mentioned also. The license type in the infobox should make the difference and also the first paragraph must be changed. I think the following will do: "Alfresco comes in two flavours. Alfresco LABS is free software, GNU licensed open source and open standards, but never an officially deemed stable release. Alfresco Enterprise Edition is commercially / proprietary licensed open source, open standards and enterprise scale. Alfresco is a Enterprise content management system for Microsoft Windows and Unix-like operating systems." Beljoost (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its now called Community instead of labs. Kennethbarber (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It's free. Only when you want to have commercial support you'll have to pay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.105.8.130 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this still a free software? 

message: I've removed the no footnotes macro as this seems to have been improved. Kennethbarber (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No footnotes 

message: I move awards here. They are likely the last thing that may look like advert. They are not exactly bad on they own but seem making a too big proportion of the otherwise short article. Audriusa (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Each time I look into Alfresco I wonder what the current open source status is. I wonder if it would help the article to include a section about it. To clarify the difference I'll cite some posts I found on the web which explained it to me.
Labs has since evolved into a Community Edition.
More information on what is included or not included in the community version is explained on the enterprise subscription (retrieved on 2012-12-06) pages. The page on upgrades and maintenance has a diagram which explains the relation between community and enterprise. -- Beljoost (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labs, Community and Enterprise Edition 

message: There has been a tag added to the article regarding the quality of references. The original tag was removed when the content being reference was removed. (There was a "citation needed" reference). So technically this is a new call-out by Grayfell. That said, the specific comment is in regards to a new reference and I will address that.
The change states that Press Releases are not good references. That is a sound rule. The reference in question is a preexisting statement of staff joining Alfresco. Looking at an older version Version from December 2016 shows the previous state, complete with the now removed phrase of additional staff additions. The article statement merely mentions the joining of the staff, not the quality or the impact. The only reference still in existence of this action is that Press Release.
That statement in the article is purely factual and offers no judgement as to whether or not it was good or bad. It does not judge the quality of the staff changes. For that reason, the Press Release seems to be a valid source. THAT SAID, if there is no agreement, then we can merely remove that history statement as it is purely academic in nature as part of the history of the software firm and doesn't directly pertain to what most people are likely trying to learn visiting this page. Pie1120 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of Reference