Earlier this week DNN announced they had closed a round of VC funding from Silicon Valley VC's.  My first response, and that of many others, was 'why?'  To me, at least, capital funding for an open-source project that is in the CMS space (which has many legitimate competitors) targeted at 'increase DotNetNuke adoption' doesn't makes sense.  It's no secret that the DNN project is saddled with legacy code and not on par with other open-source CMS projects - from an architecture and standards perspective.  However, DNN does have a relatively large community (~600k) and a large (have) installed base.  [NB:  anecdotes suggest many users 'have' used DNN but no longer do.  I am in the 'have' used group myself.] 

I do, however, share a similar view with DNN on the value of an open-source project's community.  This is really the essence of monetizing open-source.  So while the DNN project itself may never be a commercial product (well, in some ways it will,  there will be a 'professional' license available) the community of DNN users will need all manner of 'additional' products - support, services, modules, etc....  And this DOES have real commercial value.  In fact, there is already a booming market for 3rd-party DNN products - something the DNN Corp is working on capturing a larger share of with their DNN Marketplace.  [NB:  snowcovered.com seems to be the main player here.]

So DNN is not forging any new ground here and, in fact, this may be precisely what led to the funding justification.  This same road has been traveled successfully by other open-source projects before - Drupal, Joomla, Wordpress, etc....  But can DNN do it - 'it' being generate a significant return on the capital infused - with this model given the Microsoft Platform alignment?  Maybe, I hope so for DNN's sake and for the larger open-source on Microsoft community.

For the record, let me be clear that I wish DNN success with this endeavor but I do not think this is the best path to take if your goal is to monetize an open-source project.  There is simply too much overhead to be accommodated which detracts from the core task of creating great software that is easy to use and solves at least one fundamental problem.  I hope that Umbraco never goes this way and I never intend to take either of my companies this way.  [NB:  yes, I know it's easy to say when I'm in the position I am.]

What does this mean for Umbraco?  Not much really.  Umbraco will continue to do what it does best - create great software that is easy to use and solves some fundamental problems.  And we, the Umbraco community will continue to grow in number and dedication.  We already have some traction on the fundamentals: an organized, enthusiastic, and involved community; a nascent marketplace for 3rd-party products; a sustainable revenue model for core development; and a growing number of high-profile, large-enterprise successes. 

-Paul