- Right! I still pay for SW I had high hopes in but still waiting for next release, better features, etc.

I really like the idea/possibility of an open-source Rustici SCORM engine!
regarding the comment “If the SCORM Engine were part of Moodle, for example, would any Moodle user come to us for a support arrangement”

I think the answer is yes! – as you know – SCORM Developer knowledge is low, and who better to help with Moodle related SCORM assistance than the people that wrote the package. On the Moodle side, we could modify docs/forum intros to state that the SCORM engine is the Rustici one, and provide a link to your site. Obviously some of the key Moodle Partners would provide support regarding SCORM – but they do this already at the moment.

The danger for you is that eventually Moodle (and other LMS) will have a SCORM 2004 engine that is open source, and any possible revenue stream you were getting from Moodle customers will likely cease – also those open-source engines may get pulled into other systems as well.

I believe strongly in our track record of openness and inclusion. The “SCORM Explained” section of the website, TestTrack as a whole, our willingness to answer any SCORM question posed to us, even Mike’s contributions to the standards bodies, all of these things point to our commitment to the standard and industry as a whole. This is definitely a case of a rising tide lifting all ships.

Where I differ with Fefu, however, is the degree to which our industry is just like many others in which opens source software is thriving. Our little slice (standards software) of a niche market (online learning) may not be big enough to gain the benefit of massive communities. Yes, I am well aware of Moodle and Sakai and the great work the community has done on both.

Were we to publish the SCORM Engine as an open source piece of software, who would be likely to evolve it? Due to the manner in which it is integrated in other systems, the SCORM Engine requires great care in evolving it. Months of full time involvement with the product surrounded by people who know it exceptionally well are required of a new developer before he or she can do core work evolving it. On a piece of software like linux, with a massive audience of potential developers, the likelihood of evolution from that group is high. Our industry and product simply haven’t achieved that kind of scale.

As for “what we’re afraid of”? Not too much. I’ve acknowledged here that this was a question we took the time to consider. It is not a cut and dried, absolute question for us. At this point in time, our perceived benefits don’t outweigh our perceived risks. Right now we make our living selling licenses to the software, rather than services around it. Perhaps changes in the market or the standard down the road will convince me that this path isn’t the right one. I’m open to that down the road. But for now, we’re comfortable with the decision.

There will be some who may be able to pay money, and those who are not able to do so, will pay with ignorance and exclusion.

There will be others who will create competitive tools, and share the their research. Just because they are as professional as you, and so many, they will have better tools with better compatibility in the long term.

Many other different companies share their code and make significant profit selling their consultancy services. Why couldn’t you join them ? What are you afraid of ?