Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
Locked
1234
1234
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
 
|
James
if I want to write the next generation limeWire in VW for example, can I ship an executable? You mentioned in another email: > Within the terms of the license, sure > > At 02:05 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote: > >> James: >> >> One may want to distribute something for free but that does not >> necessarily mean that one may want the source code exposed or at >> least >> blatantly exposed. So is it okay to all or any of: >> >> 1. Launch one's app at startup instead of the VW Launcher >> 2. Hide the source code to at least one's code. >> 3. Plead ignorance and just do what one things reasonable. How does it fit with the point 2. I'm confused. >> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >> commercial, in >> the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed >> runtime) Stef On 4 avr. 06, at 20:04, James Robertson wrote: > For personal use, sure. For widespread distribution, the terms of > the NC license apply. Meaning, the resulting sealed app can't be > used for commercial purposes. > > Yes, BottomFeeder potentially violates that :) > > > > At 02:03 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote: >> If I read it properly, the point #2 implies that one can't make >> runtime-packaged freeware apps with VisualWorks Non-Commercial? >> >> Cheers! >> >> -Boris >> >> -- >> +1.604.689.0322 >> DeepCove Labs Ltd. >> 4th floor 595 Howe Street >> Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 >> >> [hidden email] >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >> >> This email is intended only for the persons named in the message >> header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is >> private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please >> notify the sender and delete the entire message including any >> attachments. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Robertson [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 AM >> To: [hidden email] >> Subject: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >> >> We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for >> free >> software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: >> >> If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: >> >> -- You are already under the non-commercial or academic license, >> so any >> software you want to distribute also falls under that license >> >> -- The end users of software you give away under the non- >> commercial or >> academic license need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, >> so long as >> two things hold: >> >> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >> transaction >> rather than an NC/Academic transaction) >> >> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >> commercial, in >> the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed >> runtime) >> >> Under those criteria, you can distribute free software written in >> Cincom >> Smalltalk Non-Commercial >> >> >> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView >> >> > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> James > > if I want to write the next generation limeWire in VW for example, can I > ship an executable? Good question, that depends on whether you're making money off of it, as there are certainly ways to profit from distributing free software and I believe that would make NC license non-applicable and you'd have to buy a $300 or whatever it is per-developer these days. Clarification wouldn't hurt though. James, would it be possible to have a more official document explaining a few scenarios where NC license applies and where it does not? That would go a long way to clear up a lot of questions surrounding it. Like a step-by-step quiz to determine whether it applies or not even. Cheers! -Boris > > > You mentioned in another email: > >> Within the terms of the license, sure >> >> At 02:05 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote: >> >>> James: >>> >>> One may want to distribute something for free but that does not >>> necessarily mean that one may want the source code exposed or at least >>> blatantly exposed. So is it okay to all or any of: >>> >>> 1. Launch one's app at startup instead of the VW Launcher >>> 2. Hide the source code to at least one's code. >>> 3. Plead ignorance and just do what one things reasonable. > > How does it fit with the point 2. I'm confused. > >>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in >>> the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed >>> runtime) > > > Stef > > > On 4 avr. 06, at 20:04, James Robertson wrote: > >> For personal use, sure. For widespread distribution, the terms of the >> NC license apply. Meaning, the resulting sealed app can't be used for >> commercial purposes. >> >> Yes, BottomFeeder potentially violates that :) >> >> >> >> At 02:03 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote: >>> If I read it properly, the point #2 implies that one can't make >>> runtime-packaged freeware apps with VisualWorks Non-Commercial? >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> -Boris >>> >>> -- >>> +1.604.689.0322 >>> DeepCove Labs Ltd. >>> 4th floor 595 Howe Street >>> Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 >>> >>> [hidden email] >>> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE >>> >>> This email is intended only for the persons named in the message >>> header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is >>> private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please >>> notify the sender and delete the entire message including any >>> attachments. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: James Robertson [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 10:56 AM >>> To: [hidden email] >>> Subject: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >>> >>> We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free >>> software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: >>> >>> If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: >>> >>> -- You are already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any >>> software you want to distribute also falls under that license >>> >>> -- The end users of software you give away under the non-commercial or >>> academic license need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so >>> long as >>> two things hold: >>> >>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>> transaction >>> rather than an NC/Academic transaction) >>> >>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in >>> the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed >>> runtime) >>> >>> Under those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom >>> Smalltalk Non-Commercial >>> >>> >>> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >>> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >>> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView >>> >>> >> >> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView >> > > -- -Boris http://bpopov.wordpress.com |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by stéphane ducasse-2
may be this email was lost
> can you reply to that: >> >> Hi, >> >> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >> this means: >>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>> not a sealed runtime) >> >> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >> If yes, why would that be? >> >> Also, about: >>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >> >> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >> >> Is this correct? > |
AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
Stef,
I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not understand your questions, and I only use common sense: Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed runtime cannot be open source. Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are selling services you are a commercial services provider. Georg -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 An: vwnc-list Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial may be this email was lost > can you reply to that: >> >> Hi, >> >> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >> this means: >>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>> not a sealed runtime) >> >> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >> If yes, why would that be? >> >> Also, about: >>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >> >> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >> >> Is this correct? > |
Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
Hi georg
> Stef, > > I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not > understand > your questions, and I only use common sense: > > Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed runtime > cannot be open source. These are not my questions. Still the person wanted to know if we can give an executable (like bottomFeeder I guess). Why I get limewire-liek software without the code and I use it and this is this not the code. But this is not a problem since James replied to this case before. > Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are > selling > services you are a commercial services provider. When I write a report based on ***MY YEARS of EXPERTISE in OO and reengineering*** how much does it come from the tools I wrote in VW and that I use and how much is my own work? You see we are not selling software (since people would not know how to use it and take advantages of it) this is why this is free. Now it does not mean that if a company pay me for a report this is because I used my tools to assess it because I can also use a Java tools to assess java software. They are plenty of java tools out there. So where is the boundary. This is why if VW think that selling services = report is the same as selling software then I really think that we should move to another platform. Because this would be far too crazy for us. Imagine for example that a nice company pays a PhD student grant to do a PhD on analysing their software and that this poor student uses VW, should we pay because at the end he should deliver papers and a PhD (aren't they report?)? Should they pay because one student will use VW to get an hypothetical result. What is the risk? Far too high. You see this is far more obscure that you think it is. Or this is simple and in that case we should really not use be using VW in the future because we could be attacked. Or worse because we could not get companies to pays us PhD grants. Because at the end of the day we do not make money. Stef > > Georg > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] > Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 > An: vwnc-list > Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > may be this email was lost > >> can you reply to that: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >>> this means: >>>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>>> not a sealed runtime) >>> >>> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >>> If yes, why would that be? >>> >>> Also, about: >>>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >>> >>> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >>> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >>> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >>> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >>> >>> Is this correct? >> > > > |
RE: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
From: Georg Heeg [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed runtime > cannot be open source. Doesn't even GPL allow sealed runtimes, providing the way to get the source is made clear? That would be similar to the Bottom Feeder model, with a source-free runtime for compactness for most and a dev version for those who want it. It would be nice if the Cincom NC license allowed this. If it doesn't, I can't see many people using it to make software that lots of people will use, which as far as I can tell would be the main argument for allowing an NC version in the first place: let people see cool apps made with the power of Smalltalk. Ironic that the old commercial license _forbade_ having the core dev stuff in the shipped runtime! Steve |
Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
Hi Stef,
Why not persuading VW to sign a special agreement explaining the special nature of your research/business and therefore stating that yours is *not* a commercial use of VW. I don't think that the risk that you are talking about is too high. As any kind of risk it is subjective, and from the outside it seems minimal, since it would require Cincom taking legal action against a poor student (or University). Why would they do that? In my opinion, the only risk is that Cincom managment went mad. I don't know how likely that is, but the agreement I first mentioned could bring you the extra peace of mind. Have fun, --- Francisco Garau 0207 777 1362 - x71362 stéphane ducasse <[hidden email]> 10/04/2006 11:46 To: Georg Heeg <[hidden email]> cc: vwnc-list <[hidden email]>, [hidden email] Subject: Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial Hi georg > Stef, > > I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not > understand > your questions, and I only use common sense: > > Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed runtime > cannot be open source. These are not my questions. Still the person wanted to know if we can give an executable (like bottomFeeder I guess). Why I get limewire-liek software without the code and I use it and this is this not the code. But this is not a problem since James replied to this case before. > Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are > selling > services you are a commercial services provider. When I write a report based on ***MY YEARS of EXPERTISE in OO and reengineering*** how much does it come from the tools I wrote in VW and that I use and how much is my own work? You see we are not selling software (since people would not know how to use it and take advantages of it) this is why this is free. Now it does not mean that if a company pay me for a report this is because I used my tools to assess it because I can also use a Java tools to assess java software. They are plenty of java tools out there. So where is the boundary. This is why if VW think that selling services = report is the same as selling software then I really think that we should move to another platform. Because this would be far too crazy for us. Imagine for example that a nice company pays a PhD student grant to do a PhD on analysing their software and that this poor student uses VW, should we pay because at the end he should deliver papers and a PhD (aren't they report?)? Should they pay because one student will use VW to get an hypothetical result. What is the risk? Far too high. You see this is far more obscure that you think it is. Or this is simple and in that case we should really not use be using VW in the future because we could be attacked. Or worse because we could not get companies to pays us PhD grants. Because at the end of the day we do not make money. Stef > > Georg > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] > Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 > An: vwnc-list > Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > may be this email was lost > >> can you reply to that: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >>> this means: >>>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>>> not a sealed runtime) >>> >>> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >>> If yes, why would that be? >>> >>> Also, about: >>>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >>> >>> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >>> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >>> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >>> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >>> >>> Is this correct? >> > > > This communication is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein do not necessarily reflect those of JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates. |
Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by stéphane ducasse-2
Stef:
May I ask a question? Suppose a small company developed a data mining tool using VisualWorks, because they used VisualWorks it took them let's say at least a third of the time to build with far fewer resources etc, etc, also because its VisualWorks it is easier to maintain etc. Now this company does not sell the tool but instead it goes into Fortune 500 companies and gets paid a tremendous amount of money to analyze these companies data. Said Fortune 500 companies in turn because of the analytical output of the tool save a tremendous amount of money. Don't you think it fair that Cincom would not share in said small company's good fortune? BTW, the fact of the matter is that the small company could have sold the software but they figured that they could make sooooo much more money by selling services around the tool. Also they feared that if the tool got out of their hands somebody might use it to provide services themselves and/or possibly reverse engineer it etc. So actually, selling "services" in this case is very much in their favor. Yet the company the company that was very instrumental in their success, according to what I understand you are saying would not get a dime. Is this fair? Am I misunderstanding something? -Charles On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:46:40 -0400, stéphane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi georg > > >> Stef, >> >> I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not >> understand >> your questions, and I only use common sense: >> >> Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed runtime >> cannot be open source. > > These are not my questions. Still the person wanted to know if we can > give an executable > (like bottomFeeder I guess). > Why I get limewire-liek software without the code and I use it and this > is this not the code. > But this is not a problem since James replied to this case before. > >> Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are selling >> services you are a commercial services provider. > > When I write a report based on ***MY YEARS of EXPERTISE in OO and > reengineering*** > how much does it come from the tools I wrote in VW and that I use and > how much is > my own work? > > You see we are not selling software (since people would not know how to > use it > and take advantages of it) this is why this is free. > > Now it does not mean that if a company pay me for a report this is > because I used > my tools to assess it because I can also use a Java tools to assess java > software. They are plenty of > java tools out there. So where is the boundary. This is why if VW think > that selling services = report is the same > as selling software then I really think that we should move to another > platform. Because this would be far too > crazy for us. > > Imagine for example that a nice company pays a PhD student grant to do a > PhD on analysing their software > and that this poor student uses VW, should we pay because at the end he > should deliver papers > and a PhD (aren't they report?)? Should they pay because one student > will use VW to get an hypothetical > result. What is the risk? Far too high. > > You see this is far more obscure that you think it is. Or this is simple > and in that case we should really > not use be using VW in the future because we could be attacked. Or worse > because we could not > get companies to pays us PhD grants. Because at the end of the day we do > not make money. > > > Stef > >> >> Georg >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 >> An: vwnc-list >> Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >> >> may be this email was lost >> >>> can you reply to that: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >>>> this means: >>>>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>>>> not a sealed runtime) >>>> >>>> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >>>> If yes, why would that be? >>>> >>>> Also, about: >>>>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >>>> >>>> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >>>> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >>>> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >>>> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >>>> >>>> Is this correct? >>> >> >> >> -- Charles A. Monteiro |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was
clear enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without having to pay license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is similar, and I may be naïve but I think the issue is handled honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the attitude has always been to act "in the spirit of the law" instead of to the letter (which always necessitates an exact rendering and that is impossible to accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the spirit seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, you don't have to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I being naïve? 2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free > software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: > > If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: > > -- You are already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any > software you want to distribute also falls under that license > > -- The end users of software you give away under the non-commercial or > academic license need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things hold: > > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in > the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed runtime) > > Under those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom > Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services or for
the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was clear >enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without having to pay >license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is similar, and I may be >naïve but I think the issue is handled honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the >attitude has always been to act "in the spirit of the law" instead of to >the letter (which always necessitates an exact rendering and that is >impossible to accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the >Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to >this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the spirit >seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, you don't have >to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I being naïve? >2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > We've gotten a few >questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free > software >distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: > > If you >have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: > > -- You are >already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any > software >you want to distribute also falls under that license > > -- The end users >of software you give away under the non-commercial or > academic license >need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things >hold: > > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The end users >use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in > the context of >the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed runtime) > > Under >those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom > >Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class >Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > >http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
Ok I understand
so this means that we would have to pay for one license and 5% of the salary of the guy (if this is a PhD grant)? The problem for me is not to pay but to know what should be considered in the percentage. I also think that this is what can seriously worry a big company and block the use of our tools internally because I do not see a large company (paying 5% of their income May be I'm wrong here) just because one guy is using VW in their software quality department, especially for a tools that is free. So I hope that you understand that I'm not asking these questions for the sake of it. Just that I have to understand what are the risk that our research will get blocked because of situation that we do not control. Stef > The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services > or for the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. > > At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >> I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was >> clear enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without >> having to pay license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is >> similar, and I may be naïve but I think the issue is handled >> honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the attitude has always been to act >> "in the spirit of the law" instead of to the letter (which always >> necessitates an exact rendering and that is impossible to >> accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the Anglo- >> Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to >> this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the >> spirit seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, >> you don't have to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I >> being naïve? 2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > >> We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for >> free > software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy >> we have: > > If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non- >> commercial, then: > > -- You are already under the non-commercial >> or academic license, so any > software you want to distribute also >> falls under that license > > -- The end users of software you give >> away under the non-commercial or > academic license need not pay >> anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things hold: > >> > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >> transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The >> end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in >> > the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a >> sealed runtime) > > Under those criteria, you can distribute free >> software written in Cincom > Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk >> Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product >> Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/ >> blogView > > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
Yes, but how do you calculate what the customer owes Cincom when an in house
application is used as part of infrastructure for providing service? What if the in house application is developed in PHP, Smalltalk, C, and Oracle? Do you simply charge your customer a per-developer seat per year when they develop in house apps? -Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC http://www.libertybasic.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Robertson" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services or for the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was clear >enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without having to pay >license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is similar, and I may be >naïve but I think the issue is handled honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the >attitude has always been to act "in the spirit of the law" instead of to >the letter (which always necessitates an exact rendering and that is >impossible to accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the >Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to >this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the spirit >seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, you don't have >to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I being naïve? >2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > We've gotten a few >questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free > software >distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: > > If you >have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: > > -- You are >already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any > software >you want to distribute also falls under that license > > -- The end users >of software you give away under the non-commercial or > academic license >need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things >hold: > > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The end users >use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in > the context of >the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed runtime) > > Under >those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom > >Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class >Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > >http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView |
RE: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
If you develop a commercial product with, say, Java with a team of a 100
people and you have 1 person working on QAing this product and happens to use VisualWorks for this, yes you'd have to consider it commercial application. So you'd have to pay for one license, but you do not have to pay 5% of revenues made on the sales of the main product as far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, James. This is getting somewhat unclear, which is why I'd suggested someone should invest time into a more comprehensive document describing various use cases for both NC and commercial licenses. Thanks! -Boris -- +1.604.689.0322 DeepCove Labs Ltd. 4th floor 595 Howe Street Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 [hidden email] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email is intended only for the persons named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the entire message including any attachments. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:30 PM To: James Robertson Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial Ok I understand so this means that we would have to pay for one license and 5% of the salary of the guy (if this is a PhD grant)? The problem for me is not to pay but to know what should be considered in the percentage. I also think that this is what can seriously worry a big company and block the use of our tools internally because I do not see a large company (paying 5% of their income May be I'm wrong here) just because one guy is using VW in their software quality department, especially for a tools that is free. So I hope that you understand that I'm not asking these questions for the sake of it. Just that I have to understand what are the risk that our research will get blocked because of situation that we do not control. Stef > The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services > or for the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. > > At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >> I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was >> clear enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without >> having to pay license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is >> similar, and I may be naïve but I think the issue is handled >> honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the attitude has always been to act >> "in the spirit of the law" instead of to the letter (which always >> necessitates an exact rendering and that is impossible to >> accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the Anglo- >> Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to >> this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the >> spirit seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, >> you don't have to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I >> being naïve? 2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > >> We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for >> free > software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy >> we have: > > If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non- >> commercial, then: > > -- You are already under the non-commercial >> or academic license, so any > software you want to distribute also >> falls under that license > > -- The end users of software you give >> away under the non-commercial or > academic license need not pay >> anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things hold: > >> > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >> transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The >> end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in >> > the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a >> sealed runtime) > > Under those criteria, you can distribute free >> software written in Cincom > Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk >> Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product >> Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/ >> blogView > > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > |
smime.p7s (4K)
Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by Charles A. Monteiro-2
Hi charles
this is not a problem to share or pay. You cannot tell me that I'm not pushing Smalltalk and VW. I was even proposing to pay long time ago even when we got the NC version. Now this is a question that I do not have a software that will make a huge amount of money and that no company will use it and they will not make a huge amount of money either. Now the situation would be really different if this would be a fixed price license. Since now I have problem to explain to a company that they could use our tool (which are free) but that because they use VW they would have to pay something (I cannot even explain to them the model so I do not even try) based on their income (if I understood correctly the model) because one guy in their software quality team would use our prototype tool and because they would pay us for some workshops to explain how to use the tool. Now if I work on the research consortium with some research labs of big companies. I guess that if their lawyers really look at our tools and their license, they should simply ban us or said to their researchers that they should not use our tools because of the unclear pricing model (at least I could not understand it so I'm certainly idiot). Note that in a EU project we do not get money from companies but from the state, so this would work but clearly limit the use of our tools. You see my reality. I should have done data mining of course, I took the wrong lectures. So I got the answer that I wanted to get and I will live with them. Stef On 10 avr. 06, at 20:56, Charles A. Monteiro wrote: > Stef: > > May I ask a question? > > Suppose a small company developed a data mining tool using > VisualWorks, because they used VisualWorks it took them let's say > at least a third of the time to build with far fewer resources etc, > etc, also because its VisualWorks it is easier to maintain etc. Now > this company does not sell the tool but instead it goes into > Fortune 500 companies and gets paid a tremendous amount of money to > analyze these companies data. Said Fortune 500 companies in turn > because of the analytical output of the tool save a tremendous > amount of money. > > Don't you think it fair that Cincom would not share in said small > company's good fortune? > > BTW, the fact of the matter is that the small company could have > sold the software but they figured that they could make sooooo > much more money by selling services around the tool. Also they > feared that if the tool got out of their hands somebody might use > it to provide services themselves and/or possibly reverse engineer > it etc. So actually, selling "services" in this case is very much > in their favor. Yet the company the company that was very > instrumental in their success, according to what I understand you > are saying would not get a dime. > > Is this fair? > > Am I misunderstanding something? > > -Charles > > > > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:46:40 -0400, stéphane ducasse > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi georg >> >> >>> Stef, >>> >>> I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not >>> understand >>> your questions, and I only use common sense: >>> >>> Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed >>> runtime >>> cannot be open source. >> >> These are not my questions. Still the person wanted to know if we >> can give an executable >> (like bottomFeeder I guess). >> Why I get limewire-liek software without the code and I use it and >> this is this not the code. >> But this is not a problem since James replied to this case before. >> >>> Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are >>> selling >>> services you are a commercial services provider. >> >> When I write a report based on ***MY YEARS of EXPERTISE in OO and >> reengineering*** >> how much does it come from the tools I wrote in VW and that I use >> and how much is >> my own work? >> >> You see we are not selling software (since people would not know >> how to use it >> and take advantages of it) this is why this is free. >> >> Now it does not mean that if a company pay me for a report this is >> because I used >> my tools to assess it because I can also use a Java tools to >> assess java software. They are plenty of >> java tools out there. So where is the boundary. This is why if VW >> think that selling services = report is the same >> as selling software then I really think that we should move to >> another platform. Because this would be far too >> crazy for us. >> >> Imagine for example that a nice company pays a PhD student grant >> to do a PhD on analysing their software >> and that this poor student uses VW, should we pay because at the >> end he should deliver papers >> and a PhD (aren't they report?)? Should they pay because one >> student will use VW to get an hypothetical >> result. What is the risk? Far too high. >> >> You see this is far more obscure that you think it is. Or this is >> simple and in that case we should really >> not use be using VW in the future because we could be attacked. Or >> worse because we could not >> get companies to pays us PhD grants. Because at the end of the day >> we do not make money. >> >> >> Stef >> >>> >>> Georg >>> >>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] >>> Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 >>> An: vwnc-list >>> Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >>> >>> may be this email was lost >>> >>>> can you reply to that: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >>>>> this means: >>>>>>> 2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>>>>> commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>>>>> not a sealed runtime) >>>>> >>>>> Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >>>>> If yes, why would that be? >>>>> >>>>> Also, about: >>>>>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>>>>> transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >>>>> >>>>> I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >>>>> software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >>>>> the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >>>>> sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >>>>> >>>>> Is this correct? >>>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- > Charles A. Monteiro |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
In house apps are charged on a different model. The royalty model is
specifically for externally sold apps. Internal, commercial use is charged by CPU or by end user At 03:32 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >Yes, but how do you calculate what the customer owes Cincom when an in house >application is used as part of infrastructure for providing service? What >if the in house application is developed in PHP, Smalltalk, C, and Oracle? > >Do you simply charge your customer a per-developer seat per year when they >develop in house apps? > >-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC >http://www.libertybasic.com > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "James Robertson" <[hidden email]> >To: <[hidden email]> >Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:19 PM >Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > >The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services or for >the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. > >At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: > >I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was clear > >enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without having to pay > >license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is similar, and I may be > >naïve but I think the issue is handled honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the > >attitude has always been to act "in the spirit of the law" instead of to > >the letter (which always necessitates an exact rendering and that is > >impossible to accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the > >Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to > >this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the spirit > >seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, you don't have > >to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I being naïve? > >2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > We've gotten a few > >questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free > software > >distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: > > If you > >have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: > > -- You are > >already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any > software > >you want to distribute also falls under that license > > -- The end users > >of software you give away under the non-commercial or > academic license > >need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things > >hold: > > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial > >transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The end users > >use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in > the context of > >the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed runtime) > > Under > >those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom > > >Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class > >Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > > >http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > > ><Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
> Yes, but how do you calculate what the customer owes Cincom when an > in house > application is used as part of infrastructure for providing > service? What > if the in house application is developed in PHP, Smalltalk, C, and > Oracle? Indeed this is why people boycotted us (SmallWiki) for internal use because this was not clear that they could use SmallWiki for getting their internal diary inside their company. And what they would have to pay cincom. So they simply did not use Smallwiki and this is why we started Pier on Squeak. > Do you simply charge your customer a per-developer seat per year > when they > develop in house apps? Thanks I was thinking that I was the only guy here that have such a kind of questions.... |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)
On 10 avr. 06, at 21:37, Boris Popov wrote: > If you develop a commercial product with, say, Java with a team of > a 100 > people and you have 1 person working on QAing this product and > happens to > use VisualWorks for this, yes you'd have to consider it commercial > application. So you'd have to pay for one license, but you do not > have to > pay 5% of revenues made on the sales of the main product as far as I > understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, James. This is getting somewhat > unclear, Indeed this is why I asked. Because this is unclear for me too. And I was in contact with company that do not charge for the software in C++ they develop because they sell hardware and the software is free :) (poor guys) for their clients. > which is why I'd suggested someone should invest time into a more > comprehensive document describing various use cases for both NC and > commercial licenses. > > Thanks! > > -Boris > > -- > +1.604.689.0322 > DeepCove Labs Ltd. > 4th floor 595 Howe Street > Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 > > [hidden email] > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > > This email is intended only for the persons named in the message > header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is > private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please > notify the sender and delete the entire message including any > attachments. > > Thank you. > > -----Original Message----- > From: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] > Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:30 PM > To: James Robertson > Cc: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > Ok I understand > > so this means that we would have to pay for one license and 5% of the > salary of the guy (if this is a PhD grant)? > The problem for me is not to pay but to know what should be > considered in the percentage. > I also think that this is what can seriously worry a big company and > block the use of our tools internally > because I do not see a large company (paying 5% of their income May > be I'm wrong here) just because one > guy is using VW in their software quality department, especially for > a tools that is free. > > So I hope that you understand that I'm not asking these questions for > the sake of it. Just > that I have to understand what are the risk that our research will > get blocked because of situation that > we do not control. > > Stef > > > >> The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for services >> or for the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. >> >> At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >>> I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was >>> clear enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without >>> having to pay license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is >>> similar, and I may be naïve but I think the issue is handled >>> honestly by Cincom. In Europe, the attitude has always been to act >>> "in the spirit of the law" instead of to the letter (which always >>> necessitates an exact rendering and that is impossible to >>> accomplish of course, hence the abundance of lawyers in the Anglo- >>> Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act according to >>> this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the >>> spirit seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, >>> you don't have to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I >>> being naïve? 2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > >>> We've gotten a few questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for >>> free > software distribution. In light of that, here's the policy >>> we have: > > If you have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non- >>> commercial, then: > > -- You are already under the non-commercial >>> or academic license, so any > software you want to distribute also >>> falls under that license > > -- The end users of software you give >>> away under the non-commercial or > academic license need not pay >>> anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two things hold: > >>>> 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>> transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The >>> end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in >>>> the context of the development environment (i.e., not in a >>> sealed runtime) > > Under those criteria, you can distribute free >>> software written in Cincom > Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk >>> Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product >>> Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/ >>> blogView > > >> >> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView >> >> > |
Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
On 10 avr. 06, at 21:41, James Robertson wrote: > In house apps are charged on a different model. The royalty model > is specifically for externally sold apps. Internal, commercial use > is charged by CPU or by end user What is a house apps exactly? Where can we find this information? Stef > > At 03:32 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >> Yes, but how do you calculate what the customer owes Cincom when >> an in house >> application is used as part of infrastructure for providing >> service? What >> if the in house application is developed in PHP, Smalltalk, C, and >> Oracle? >> >> Do you simply charge your customer a per-developer seat per year >> when they >> develop in house apps? >> >> -Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC >> http://www.libertybasic.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "James Robertson" <[hidden email]> >> To: <[hidden email]> >> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 3:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >> >> >> The major thing is whether money changes hands, either for >> services or for >> the software itself. If money changes hands, it's commercial. >> >> At 03:08 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >> >I provide a tool like BottomFeeder, and for me the discussion was >> clear >> >enough to convince me that I can continue doing so without having >> to pay >> >license fees. I think the situation for Stéphane is similar, and >> I may be >> >naïve but I think the issue is handled honestly by Cincom. In >> Europe, the >> >attitude has always been to act "in the spirit of the law" >> instead of to >> >the letter (which always necessitates an exact rendering and that is >> >impossible to accomplish of course, hence the abundance of >> lawyers in the >> >Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition). Cincom to me seems to act >> according to >> >this principle, and I appreciate that. And in that respect the >> spirit >> >seems clear enough: if you make money, pay, if you don't, you >> don't have >> >to pay (but you can of course if you want to). Am I being naïve? >> >2006/4/4, James Robertson <[hidden email]>: > We've gotten a few >> >questions about the use of Cincom Smalltalk for free > software >> >distribution. In light of that, here's the policy we have: > > >> If you >> >have downloaded Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, then: > > -- You >> are >> >already under the non-commercial or academic license, so any > >> software >> >you want to distribute also falls under that license > > -- The >> end users >> >of software you give away under the non-commercial or > academic >> license >> >need not pay anything, either to you or Cincom, so long as > two >> things >> >hold: > > 1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a >> commercial >> >transaction > rather than an NC/Academic transaction) > > 2) The >> end users >> >use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non-commercial, in > the >> context of >> >the development environment (i.e., not in a sealed runtime) > > >> Under >> >those criteria, you can distribute free software written in Cincom > >> >Smalltalk Non-Commercial > > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class >> >Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > >> >http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > >> >> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> >> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk >> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> > James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk > http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView > > |
Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by stéphane ducasse-2
There are three commercial license models, depending on usage:
1) End user based. If you deploy a commercial application internally, then you pay based on the number of users. 2) CPU based. If you deploy on servers (e.g. - a web app being one example), then you pay based on the number of CPUs in the the boxes you deploy on 3) Royalty based. If you sell product/services around a Cincom Smalltalk based application to end users who are not part of your organization, then you pay based on the CST based revenues (3) Applies if you are selling an application or service. Otherwise, (1) or (2) apply. Yes, we have customers who use multiple license models, because they use the product more than one way. To answer the "why isn't it a one time fixed price" question, our predecessor company went bankrupt on that model. More recently, Borland bailed on the entire tools business, in large measure due to the failure of that model. At 03:41 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >Hi charles > >this is not a problem to share or pay. You cannot tell me that I'm >not pushing Smalltalk and VW. >I was even proposing to pay long time ago even when we got the NC >version. >Now this is a question that I do not have a software that will make a >huge amount of money >and that no company will use it and they will not make a huge amount >of money either. > >Now the situation would be really different if this would be a fixed >price license. Since >now I have problem to explain to a company that they could use our >tool (which are free) >but that because they use VW they would have to pay something (I >cannot even explain to them the model >so I do not even try) based on their income (if I understood >correctly the model) because one >guy in their software quality team would use our prototype tool and >because they would pay >us for some workshops to explain how to use the tool. > >Now if I work on the research consortium with some research labs of >big companies. I guess that >if their lawyers really look at our tools and their license, they >should simply ban us or said to their >researchers that they should not use our tools because of the unclear >pricing model (at least I could >not understand it so I'm certainly idiot). Note that in a EU project >we do not get money from companies >but from the state, so this would work but clearly limit the use of >our tools. > >You see my reality. I should have done data mining of course, I took >the wrong lectures. > >So I got the answer that I wanted to get and I will live with them. > >Stef > > > >On 10 avr. 06, at 20:56, Charles A. Monteiro wrote: > >>Stef: >> >>May I ask a question? >> >>Suppose a small company developed a data mining tool using >>VisualWorks, because they used VisualWorks it took them let's say >>at least a third of the time to build with far fewer resources etc, >>etc, also because its VisualWorks it is easier to maintain etc. Now >>this company does not sell the tool but instead it goes into >>Fortune 500 companies and gets paid a tremendous amount of money to >>analyze these companies data. Said Fortune 500 companies in turn >>because of the analytical output of the tool save a tremendous >>amount of money. >> >>Don't you think it fair that Cincom would not share in said small >>company's good fortune? >> >>BTW, the fact of the matter is that the small company could have >>sold the software but they figured that they could make sooooo >>much more money by selling services around the tool. Also they >>feared that if the tool got out of their hands somebody might use >>it to provide services themselves and/or possibly reverse engineer >>it etc. So actually, selling "services" in this case is very much >>in their favor. Yet the company the company that was very >>instrumental in their success, according to what I understand you >>are saying would not get a dime. >> >>Is this fair? >> >>Am I misunderstanding something? >> >>-Charles >> >> >> >> >>On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:46:40 -0400, stéphane ducasse >><[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>>Hi georg >>> >>> >>>>Stef, >>>> >>>>I am neither a lawyer nor the owner of the rights, thus I do not >>>>understand >>>>your questions, and I only use common sense: >>>> >>>>Ad 1: "Open Source" has the word "source" in it, thus a sealed >>>>runtime >>>>cannot be open source. >>> >>>These are not my questions. Still the person wanted to know if we >>>can give an executable >>>(like bottomFeeder I guess). >>>Why I get limewire-liek software without the code and I use it and >>>this is this not the code. >>>But this is not a problem since James replied to this case before. >>> >>>>Ad 2: "Selling services" is a commercial act per se, if you are >>>>selling >>>>services you are a commercial services provider. >>> >>>When I write a report based on ***MY YEARS of EXPERTISE in OO and >>>reengineering*** >>>how much does it come from the tools I wrote in VW and that I use >>>and how much is >>>my own work? >>> >>>You see we are not selling software (since people would not know >>>how to use it >>>and take advantages of it) this is why this is free. >>> >>>Now it does not mean that if a company pay me for a report this is >>>because I used >>>my tools to assess it because I can also use a Java tools to >>>assess java software. They are plenty of >>>java tools out there. So where is the boundary. This is why if VW >>>think that selling services = report is the same >>>as selling software then I really think that we should move to >>>another platform. Because this would be far too >>>crazy for us. >>> >>>Imagine for example that a nice company pays a PhD student grant >>>to do a PhD on analysing their software >>>and that this poor student uses VW, should we pay because at the >>>end he should deliver papers >>>and a PhD (aren't they report?)? Should they pay because one >>>student will use VW to get an hypothetical >>>result. What is the risk? Far too high. >>> >>>You see this is far more obscure that you think it is. Or this is >>>simple and in that case we should really >>>not use be using VW in the future because we could be attacked. Or >>>worse because we could not >>>get companies to pays us PhD grants. Because at the end of the day >>>we do not make money. >>> >>> >>>Stef >>> >>>> >>>>Georg >>>> >>>>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] >>>>Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 11:39 >>>>An: vwnc-list >>>>Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial >>>> >>>>may be this email was lost >>>> >>>>>can you reply to that: >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>>It might just be too dark outside, but I do not understand what >>>>>>this means: >>>>>>>>2) The end users use the software in Cincom Smalltalk non- >>>>>>>>commercial, in the context of the development environment (i.e., >>>>>>>>not a sealed runtime) >>>>>> >>>>>>Does is mean that we are not allowed to give away an executable? >>>>>>If yes, why would that be? >>>>>> >>>>>>Also, about: >>>>>>>>1) No money changes hands (if it does, it becomes a commercial >>>>>>>>transaction rather than an NC/academic transaction) >>>>>> >>>>>>I understand that as long as we do not get money for SELLING the >>>>>>software, it is Ok. I also understand that this does not apply on >>>>>>the SERVICES sold by using the software's output - that is, if we >>>>>>sell the consultancy service, nobody has to pay for VisualWorks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Is this correct? >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>-- >>Charles A. Monteiro <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView |
RE: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
|
|
In reply to this post by James Robertson-3
You said it Stef. We need to have some kind of ultimate reference resource
that explains all this. Mailing list discussion back and forth on what people think and feel isn't something you could rely on when you plan your business, so can we please have someone in Cincom Sales write up a document that explains, # Non-Commercial License + Conditions + Applicable Cases + Sample Scenarios # Commercial License + VAR - Conditions - Applicable Cases - Sample Scenarios + CPU - Conditions - Applicable Cases - Sample Scenarios + Per User - Conditions - Applicable Cases - Sample Scenarios This would go a long way to help many people promote and sell Smalltalk, if you ask me. Cheers! -Boris -- +1.604.689.0322 DeepCove Labs Ltd. 4th floor 595 Howe Street Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 [hidden email] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email is intended only for the persons named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the entire message including any attachments. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:48 PM To: James Robertson Cc: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial On 10 avr. 06, at 21:41, James Robertson wrote: > In house apps are charged on a different model. The royalty model > is specifically for externally sold apps. Internal, commercial use > is charged by CPU or by end user What is a house apps exactly? Where can we find this information? Stef |
«
Return to VisualWorks
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |