Smalltalk › Cincom › VisualWorks

Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

68 messages Options

1234

James Robertson-3

Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

"in-house" would mean a desktop application deployed only at your company.

At 03:48 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:

>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 StÃ©phane is similar, and
>>>I may be
>>> >naÃ¯ve 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 naÃ¯ve?
>>> >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
>>

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

stéphane ducasse-2

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

> 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.

do you have a draft idea of the price?
Because I do not have even an idea?

>
> 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

Same here?

>
> 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.

I trust you that you have good reason for your model and this is your
decision.
Now I just need to assess the risk I take as a researcher developing
open source software in VW for my
contacts with companies.

A last one:

What is CST based revenues?

James having some described scenarios would be really good since
people could refer to it.
Right now I do not have any contracts but I want to know just in
case. This is already difficult enough to say that I'm developing
in Smalltalk and not in Java, so I want to control the level of
complexity on that side too.

Stef

Yanni Chiu

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

James Robertson wrote:
> To answer the "why isn't it a one time fixed price" question, our
> predecessor company went bankrupt on that model.

The predecessor company failed to survive, and it was using a fixed price model.
Maybe it was the pricing model, maybe it was something else. Whatever the case,
you want to try a different pricing model this time round - fair enough. But I
find it hard to accept that the fixed price model is inherently flawed. Maybe
the market realities don't allow to you to make your fixed price high enough to
match the expenses you plan to incur. The market realities being: competition
from free (open-source) developer tools, subsidized tools (MS), free & subsidized
tools (Java).

> More recently, Borland
> bailed on the entire tools business, in large measure due to the failure
> of that model.

Should this be interpeted as a failure of the pricing model?
Or, is it that the contribution (i.e. value-added) due to the
developer tools is too small to be a viable market anymore.
The really big money comes from the product/service built with
the tools, not the tools themselves. The only marketplace for
developer tools is, developers - and nobody cuts fat cheques
to pay for developer tools like they would for marketing stuff.

James Robertson-3

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

If you can devise a business model whereby I could sell Cincom Smalltalk
for a fixed, one time cost - and fund engineering and product management
with that - I'd love to see it. I've looked at numbers for such a thing,
and it's not encouraging. I invite you to give it a shot - and no, I'm not
being sarcastic. I'm quite serious.

At 04:31 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:

>James Robertson wrote:
>>To answer the "why isn't it a one time fixed price" question, our
>>predecessor company went bankrupt on that model.
>
>The predecessor company failed to survive, and it was using a fixed price
>model.
>Maybe it was the pricing model, maybe it was something else. Whatever the
>case,
>you want to try a different pricing model this time round - fair enough. But I
>find it hard to accept that the fixed price model is inherently flawed. Maybe
>the market realities don't allow to you to make your fixed price high
>enough to
>match the expenses you plan to incur. The market realities being: competition
>from free (open-source) developer tools, subsidized tools (MS), free &
>subsidized
>tools (Java).
>
> > More recently, Borland
>>bailed on the entire tools business, in large measure due to the failure
>>of that model.
>
>Should this be interpeted as a failure of the pricing model?
>Or, is it that the contribution (i.e. value-added) due to the
>developer tools is too small to be a viable market anymore.
>The really big money comes from the product/service built with
>the tools, not the tools themselves. The only marketplace for
>developer tools is, developers - and nobody cuts fat cheques
>to pay for developer tools like they would for marketing stuff.

<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

Steven Kelly

RE: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

From: James Robertson [mailto:[hidden email]]
>
> If you can devise a business model whereby I could sell Cincom
Smalltalk
> for a fixed, one time cost - and fund engineering and product
management
> with that - I'd love to see it.

I say cut the management ;-). Sorry Jim, I couldn't resist - you left
yourself wide open to that one!

Seriously though, VW provides a big productivity increase compared to
Java, C# etc. If we really claim Smalltalk is 2-3x as productive as
Java, then for each developer using VW we could be paying Cincom a
second developer's wages - and still coming out ahead. Of course, nobody
will pay that kind of money, nor is Cincom asking for it. But when you
consider how much people spend on tools that don't really make a
difference to their productivity, it does put things in perspective.

Count and see how many software products are sold these days on a simple
license fee approach, versus those sold with subscriptions, as
loss-leaders, or bundled with hardware. The IDE market is considerably
worse than the general market in this respect. And nobody could accuse
the Smalltalk IDE market of being particularly lucrative - else Cincom's
competitors with different business models would be driving
Lamborghinis. But enough of serious talk, let's look at the root of the
problem:

We developers are stereotypically:
a) tight-fisted with money,
b) ingenious (but have no business sense), and
c) generous with our code (but not documentation).
This means we:
a) don't want to pay,
b) can give you a dozen reasons why giving out your software for free
would be in everyone's best interests (but actually you'd go bankrupt),
and
c) will release a competing product as open source, which other
developers will talk excitedly about and use as a reason for b) (but
nobody can actually use it for serious development).

:-)
Steve

> At 04:31 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:
> >James Robertson wrote:
> >>To answer the "why isn't it a one time fixed price" question, our
> >>predecessor company went bankrupt on that model.
> >
> >The predecessor company failed to survive, and it was using a fixed
price
> >model.
> >Maybe it was the pricing model, maybe it was something else. Whatever
the
> >case,
> >you want to try a different pricing model this time round - fair
enough.
> But I
> >find it hard to accept that the fixed price model is inherently
flawed.
> Maybe
> >the market realities don't allow to you to make your fixed price high
> >enough to
> >match the expenses you plan to incur. The market realities being:
> competition
> >from free (open-source) developer tools, subsidized tools (MS), free
&
> >subsidized
> >tools (Java).
> >
> > > More recently, Borland
> >>bailed on the entire tools business, in large measure due to the
failure

> >>of that model.
> >
> >Should this be interpeted as a failure of the pricing model?
> >Or, is it that the contribution (i.e. value-added) due to the
> >developer tools is too small to be a viable market anymore.
> >The really big money comes from the product/service built with
> >the tools, not the tools themselves. The only marketplace for
> >developer tools is, developers - and nobody cuts fat cheques
> >to pay for developer tools like they would for marketing stuff.
>
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
> James Robertson, Product Manager, Cincom Smalltalk
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/blog/blogView

James Robertson-3

RE: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

>I say cut the management ;-). Sorry Jim, I couldn't resist - you left
>yourself wide open to that one!

Seriously, there are exactly 3 managers in the chain (including the CEO)
from any of our engineers to the top. Which means there's not a lot of fat
to cut that way. Cincom is hardly perfect (don't expect me to air dirty
laundry in public though), but extra fat in the management chain of
engineering is not one of our problems.

>Seriously though, VW provides a big productivity increase compared to
>Java, C# etc. If we really claim Smalltalk is 2-3x as productive as
>Java, then for each developer using VW we could be paying Cincom a
>second developer's wages - and still coming out ahead. Of course, nobody
>will pay that kind of money, nor is Cincom asking for it. But when you
>consider how much people spend on tools that don't really make a
>difference to their productivity, it does put things in perspective.
>
>Count and see how many software products are sold these days on a simple
>license fee approach, versus those sold with subscriptions, as
>loss-leaders, or bundled with hardware. The IDE market is considerably
>worse than the general market in this respect. And nobody could accuse
>the Smalltalk IDE market of being particularly lucrative - else Cincom's
>competitors with different business models would be driving
>Lamborghinis. But enough of serious talk, let's look at the root of the
>problem:
>
>We developers are stereotypically:
> a) tight-fisted with money,
> b) ingenious (but have no business sense), and
> c) generous with our code (but not documentation).
>This means we:
> a) don't want to pay,
> b) can give you a dozen reasons why giving out your software for free
>would be in everyone's best interests (but actually you'd go bankrupt),
>and
> c) will release a competing product as open source, which other
>developers will talk excitedly about and use as a reason for b) (but
>nobody can actually use it for serious development).
>
>:-)
>Steve
>
> > At 04:31 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote:
> > >James Robertson wrote:
> > >>To answer the "why isn't it a one time fixed price" question, our
> > >>predecessor company went bankrupt on that model.
> > >
> > >The predecessor company failed to survive, and it was using a fixed
>price
> > >model.
> > >Maybe it was the pricing model, maybe it was something else. Whatever
>the
> > >case,
> > >you want to try a different pricing model this time round - fair
>enough.
> > But I
> > >find it hard to accept that the fixed price model is inherently
>flawed.
> > Maybe
> > >the market realities don't allow to you to make your fixed price high
> > >enough to
> > >match the expenses you plan to incur. The market realities being:
> > competition
> > >from free (open-source) developer tools, subsidized tools (MS), free
>&
> > >subsidized
> > >tools (Java).
> > >
> > > > More recently, Borland
> > >>bailed on the entire tools business, in large measure due to the
>failure
> > >>of that model.
> > >
> > >Should this be interpeted as a failure of the pricing model?
> > >Or, is it that the contribution (i.e. value-added) due to the
> > >developer tools is too small to be a viable market anymore.
> > >The really big money comes from the product/service built with
> > >the tools, not the tools themselves. The only marketplace for
> > >developer tools is, developers - and nobody cuts fat cheques
> > >to pay for developer tools like they would for marketing stuff.
> >
> > <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

Yanni Chiu

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

James Robertson wrote:
> If you can devise a business model whereby I could sell Cincom Smalltalk
> for a fixed, one time cost - and fund engineering and product management
> with that - I'd love to see it. I've looked at numbers for such a
> thing, and it's not encouraging. I invite you to give it a shot - and
> no, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm quite serious.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but what grates is your unqualified
statements that a fixed price leads to bankruptcy. Maybe I should
just read your statements in that regard as: "We cannot meet our
revenue numbers under our current business plan using a fixed
price model."

IMHO, a fixed price model is just as viable a pricing scheme,
as "run-time" pricing. If the pricing model can't be made to
work, then maybe the business model is flawed:
- the marketplace is too small to sustain a "cadillac" Smalltalk
and the low-end is already occupied by others.
- despite having a limited market, the VW product is required
to stand on it's own (revenue-wise), unable to bundle the
product with other offerings (e.g. consulting).
- the product occupies a mature niche, and there are viable
substitutes (ST's and other languages). Therefore, the expenditures
must be brought into line with revenues; or, investment must be
made (which may lead to an initial net-loss), in order to create
"new" features. But you're trying to fund investment using
revenues from a mature product. How many times can you milk
the cow; wasn't it milked a decade ago.

FWIW, here's a wild guess at some numbers. This'll be hard,
since you likely cannot confirm or deny the numbers.

5 people - future product - e.g. new UI, new VM, new ?
- need a vision to take to corporate masters to fund this

5 people - current product - keep up to date with marketplace (i.e. new OS, DB, inter-op, etc.)
5 people - tech. support, docs, etc.
- mgmt is included in the headcounts

10 people * $200,000 revenue/person = $2000000

$5000 per seat fixed price
1000 installed based
20% or $1000 per seat for maintenance = $1000000

Remaining $1000000 divided by $5000 per seat = 200 copies per year.

So you need to grow your installed base by 20% a year.
In five years, your installed base, through maintenance,
would fund your operations, and additional sales would
be icing. Rosy picture :)

Mark Roberts

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

At 12:17 PM 4/11/2006, Yanni Chiu wrote:

>FWIW, here's a wild guess at some numbers. This'll be hard,
>since you likely cannot confirm or deny the numbers.
>
>5 people - future product - e.g. new UI, new VM, new ?
>- need a vision to take to corporate masters to fund this
>
>5 people - current product - keep up to date with marketplace (i.e. new
>OS, DB, inter-op, etc.)
>5 people - tech. support, docs, etc.
>- mgmt is included in the headcounts

Well, it's pretty easy to deny that 5 engineers are enough to "keep up to
date with marketplace". That just sounds wildly optimistic.

And a staff of five support and doc people to keep up with 10 engineers is
pretty optimistic, too.

Regards,

M

Andre Schnoor

Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by Rob Vens

Rob Vens 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'm using several freeware tools in my business. More or less indirectly
they somehow help me to make money. If the authors of the tools were
bound to a license saying: "You make money, We make money", then this is
probably ok, because it is completely out of their control what others
are doing with the tools they are giving away for free (One could use
James' BottomFeeder for commercial in house purposes, for example a news
agency).

I guess the real difference is, if the one actually using the IDE is
making money (directly or indirectly). If you are in control of the
sources, then you need the IDE to compile them, which requires you to
agree to the license. You become a developer yourself.

If you are downloading and using a free sealed runtime, you will only
have to agree to the more liberal freeware license. That's why sealed
runtimes are probably an issue.

It is relatively tricky to unambiguisly distinguish "real" freeware
(that is publicly available and potentially useful for a large audience
and therefore also a nice branding tool for Cincom) from "gift to my
wive who makes money from it" cases. Even the case where one might gift
a serious taylor-made solution for a friend's business should be be
clearly defineable.

I suggest that freeware authors planning to promote sealed runtimes
simply ask Cincom for an individual permission for the particular
project. There are not that many freeware authors using VW yet, neither
can a single author launch dozens of projects each year, so the overall
effort will be minimal. This provides safety for both parties and
doesn't block interesting freeware projects from promoting Smalltalk.

I believe that heavy branding of Smalltalk outside the current community
is absolutely necessary for it to survive. People get interested in new
tools they are seeing widely and successfully used. For the majority of
developers Smalltalk is still "new".

Andre

Nowak, Helge

AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

Dear all,

I don't understand one thing: when people have questions about Cincom licenses why don't they ask their Cincom sales rep?

Cheers
Helge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Montag, 10. April 2006 21:45
An: Carl Gundel
Cc: [hidden email]
Betreff: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

> 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....

Charles A. Monteiro-2

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by stéphane ducasse-2

Stef:

I am just trying to understand a situation where I would NOT find it
appropriate to let Cincom have its due.

Scenario #1
---------------

I built a tool in VW that allows me to provide a better "service" faster
etc. I charge my client a "fair" base fee of $1,000.00 and then add
another say $100.00 to more than cover the 5% that Cincom is owed. Of
course, I simply tell my customer that he owes me $1,100.00.

I'm okay with this.

Scenario # 2
----------------

Scenario # 1 plus
along with the services specified in Scenario #1 I sell a tool for $50.00.
That means that I owe Cincom i.e. for example purposes an additional 5% on
that. I also sell the tool under a very specific license which tells the
customer that they can freely use it internally within their organization
but that they cannot "resell" the tool. If they wish to resell the tool
they need to sign a different licensing agreement where I in turn will
receive revenue from those sales. In turn Cincom will receive their 5% off
my increased revenues.

I'm okay with this. I

I also assume that I can setup the relationship as described and not force
my clients have to enter into a relationship directly with Cincom. Pls,
what the official scoop on this?

Scenario # 3
-----------------

A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific issue
etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my brainstorming
I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a context to my
brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my drift. After I have
collected my thoughts I go back to client and provide him with an analysis
of the issues , perhaps including some diagrams that I have created with
VISIO or whatever. I charge the customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM
A DIME.

I'm okay with this.

BTW, In one's agreements with Cincom one can separate what revenues that
are subject to Cincom "royalties" from what are not. For example, I may
have a company that does both Java and VisualWorks development/consulting
services.

CONCLUSION

I'll admit not quite understanding what your particular problem is but I
would think it would fall under one of the above scenarios.

To me all of the above just makes sense. I'm not saying that you disagree
with it. I actually still don't really know what your position is but I
believe that there are people that are NOT okay with the above and I just
don't get it. Again, I'm not making a specific comment about you.

-Charles

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:41:45 -0400, stéphane ducasse
<[hidden email]> 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

--
Charles A. Monteiro

Charles A. Monteiro-2

Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by Carl Gundel

what percentage of Smalltalk code comprises your offering to your client?

In other words, to do what I need to do to make my money Smalltalk is
about 60% , PHP another 20%, C libs the remaining 20%.

Therefore Cincom royalties would be:

(Revenues * 60%) * 5%

assuming a 5% agreement with Cincom.

Well, that is certainly the model that I'm most familiar with but in I
believe that is the general idea.

What value is Smalltalk to your money making abilities? that value is
what makes sense would be subject to royalties whatever those may be.

-Charles

On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:32:10 -0400, Carl Gundel <[hidden email]>
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 StÃ©phane is similar, and I may
>> be
>> naÃ¯ve 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 naÃ¯ve?
>> 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
>
>

--
Charles A. Monteiro

Carl Gundel

Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

Well, it's not just a matter of what's fair to Cincom (define fair). :-)
Cincom must be able to sell it.

The potential Cincom VAR customer must feel comfortable with whatever terms
Cincom puts forward for licensing. If there is a way to make a 6% royalty
payment acceptable, Cincom would serve themselves best to make this:

- easily discoverable
- clear and understandable
- unintimidating

Same for the in-house software development project or whatever scenario.

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles A. Monteiro" <[hidden email]>
To: "Carl Gundel" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

> what percentage of Smalltalk code comprises your offering to your client?
>
> In other words, to do what I need to do to make my money Smalltalk is
> about 60% , PHP another 20%, C libs the remaining 20%.
>
> Therefore Cincom royalties would be:
>
> (Revenues * 60%) * 5%
>
> assuming a 5% agreement with Cincom.
>
> Well, that is certainly the model that I'm most familiar with but in I
> believe that is the general idea.
>
> What value is Smalltalk to your money making abilities? that value is
> what makes sense would be subject to royalties whatever those may be.
>
> -Charles
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:32:10 -0400, Carl Gundel <[hidden email]>
> 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 StÃ©phane is similar, and I may
> >> be
> >> naÃ¯ve 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 naÃ¯ve?
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Charles A. Monteiro
>
>

stéphane ducasse-2

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by Charles A. Monteiro-2

Hi charles

It makes sense to me.

I was not aware of that possibility.
In fact I never read any of the licensing possibilities. So this is
why I encourage Cincom to produce some understandable scenario.

> A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific
> issue etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my
> brainstorming I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a
> context to my brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my
> drift. After I have collected my thoughts I go back to client and
> provide him with an analysis of the issues , perhaps including some
> diagrams that I have created with VISIO or whatever. I charge the
> customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM A DIME.

Why?
Now would it be different if you use Advanced or our tools and
included screenshots of the UML classes?

> I'm okay with this.
Me too. I was not aware that we could do that.

> BTW, In one's agreements with Cincom one can separate what revenues
> that are subject to Cincom "royalties" from what are not. For
> example, I may have a company that does both Java and VisualWorks
> development/consulting services.
>
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> I'll admit not quite understanding what your particular problem is
> but I would think it would fall under one of the above scenarios.
>
> To me all of the above just makes sense. I'm not saying that you
> disagree with it. I actually still don't really know what your
> position is but I believe that there are people that are NOT okay
> with the above and I just don't get it. Again, I'm not making a
> specific comment about you.

My point is about having a least problem to explain any model cincom
wants. If I can say to my colleagues that develop in Java
their tools that they take no risk developing in VW this would helps
me. Because let us face, we are SURROUNDED by Java dev
and people. Of course we can claim that we are so fast that this does
not matter. But ***daily*** I have to argue and prove superiority
so I would appreciate that the selling model would MUCH MORE
transparent to the end-user. As a matter of fact, it is still not
totally clear to me. And I would like to find simple document that I
can read or point people too.

Note that if I would not have asked James them we would not have got
the first clarifications with money exchanges and not sealed.
(now I will check carefully the license since james told me that the
grants fall under academic license).

I thikn that in the long run, cincom should communicate much more
clearly on the topic. I guess that I will never be impacted by any
license since my job is not to make money but to make research, but I
have to know where I put my energy.

Stef

Nowak, Helge

AW: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

how about this (out since years): http://smalltalk.cincom.com/prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing

Cheers
Helge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 18:23
An: Charles A. Monteiro
Cc: vwnc-list
Betreff: Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

Hi charles

It makes sense to me.

I was not aware of that possibility.
In fact I never read any of the licensing possibilities. So this is
why I encourage Cincom to produce some understandable scenario.

> A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific
> issue etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my
> brainstorming I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a
> context to my brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my
> drift. After I have collected my thoughts I go back to client and
> provide him with an analysis of the issues , perhaps including some
> diagrams that I have created with VISIO or whatever. I charge the
> customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM A DIME.

Why?
Now would it be different if you use Advanced or our tools and
included screenshots of the UML classes?

> I'm okay with this.
Me too. I was not aware that we could do that.

stéphane ducasse-2

Re: AW: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

I'm reading it.

Tx

On 11 avr. 06, at 18:33, Nowak, Helge wrote:

> how about this (out since years): http://smalltalk.cincom.com/
> prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing
>
> Cheers
> Helge
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 18:23
> An: Charles A. Monteiro
> Cc: vwnc-list
> Betreff: Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
>
>
> Hi charles
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> I was not aware of that possibility.
> In fact I never read any of the licensing possibilities. So this is
> why I encourage Cincom to produce some understandable scenario.
>
>> A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific
>> issue etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my
>> brainstorming I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a
>> context to my brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my
>> drift. After I have collected my thoughts I go back to client and
>> provide him with an analysis of the issues , perhaps including some
>> diagrams that I have created with VISIO or whatever. I charge the
>> customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM A DIME.
>
> Why?
> Now would it be different if you use Advanced or our tools and
> included screenshots of the UML classes?
>
>> I'm okay with this.
> Me too. I was not aware that we could do that.
>
>> BTW, In one's agreements with Cincom one can separate what revenues
>> that are subject to Cincom "royalties" from what are not. For
>> example, I may have a company that does both Java and VisualWorks
>> development/consulting services.
>>
>>
>> CONCLUSION
>>
>> I'll admit not quite understanding what your particular problem is
>> but I would think it would fall under one of the above scenarios.
>>
>> To me all of the above just makes sense. I'm not saying that you
>> disagree with it. I actually still don't really know what your
>> position is but I believe that there are people that are NOT okay
>> with the above and I just don't get it. Again, I'm not making a
>> specific comment about you.
>
> My point is about having a least problem to explain any model cincom
> wants. If I can say to my colleagues that develop in Java
> their tools that they take no risk developing in VW this would helps
> me. Because let us face, we are SURROUNDED by Java dev
> and people. Of course we can claim that we are so fast that this does
> not matter. But ***daily*** I have to argue and prove superiority
> so I would appreciate that the selling model would MUCH MORE
> transparent to the end-user. As a matter of fact, it is still not
> totally clear to me. And I would like to find simple document that I
> can read or point people too.
>
> Note that if I would not have asked James them we would not have got
> the first clarifications with money exchanges and not sealed.
> (now I will check carefully the license since james told me that the
> grants fall under academic license).
>
> I thikn that in the long run, cincom should communicate much more
> clearly on the topic. I guess that I will never be impacted by any
> license since my job is not to make money but to make research, but I
> have to know where I put my energy.
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>
>

Charles A. Monteiro-2

Re: AW: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by Nowak, Helge

Stef:

I will certainly agree with one thing you have said and that is that
Cincom not only needs to communicate but in a way "market" their model
i.e. apply "PR" to their model :) because in a way it is a marketing
challenge for them. It is not the typical model although it is the right
model for them and one that eventually reasonable people I think find
"reasonable".

To make things more "clearer" might be impractical to impossible. For
example, how do we "measure" Smalltalk's worth to an organization? Surely,
not through lines of code :).

Its a hard problem i.e. marketing VisualWorks. I think overall somehow the
message " we really want your business, we really want to be your
partners" needs to come across and especially "let's sit down and talk".
The fact of the matter is what becomes the "deal" is what one actually
signs on paper.

-Charles

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:33:35 -0400, Nowak, Helge <[hidden email]> wrote:

> how about this (out since years):
> http://smalltalk.cincom.com/prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing
>
> Cheers
> Helge
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 18:23
> An: Charles A. Monteiro
> Cc: vwnc-list
> Betreff: Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
>
>
> Hi charles
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> I was not aware of that possibility.
> In fact I never read any of the licensing possibilities. So this is
> why I encourage Cincom to produce some understandable scenario.
>
>> A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific
>> issue etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my
>> brainstorming I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a
>> context to my brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my
>> drift. After I have collected my thoughts I go back to client and
>> provide him with an analysis of the issues , perhaps including some
>> diagrams that I have created with VISIO or whatever. I charge the
>> customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM A DIME.
>
> Why?
> Now would it be different if you use Advanced or our tools and
> included screenshots of the UML classes?
>
>> I'm okay with this.
> Me too. I was not aware that we could do that.
>
>> BTW, In one's agreements with Cincom one can separate what revenues
>> that are subject to Cincom "royalties" from what are not. For
>> example, I may have a company that does both Java and VisualWorks
>> development/consulting services.
>>
>>
>> CONCLUSION
>>
>> I'll admit not quite understanding what your particular problem is
>> but I would think it would fall under one of the above scenarios.
>>
>> To me all of the above just makes sense. I'm not saying that you
>> disagree with it. I actually still don't really know what your
>> position is but I believe that there are people that are NOT okay
>> with the above and I just don't get it. Again, I'm not making a
>> specific comment about you.
>
> My point is about having a least problem to explain any model cincom
> wants. If I can say to my colleagues that develop in Java
> their tools that they take no risk developing in VW this would helps
> me. Because let us face, we are SURROUNDED by Java dev
> and people. Of course we can claim that we are so fast that this does
> not matter. But ***daily*** I have to argue and prove superiority
> so I would appreciate that the selling model would MUCH MORE
> transparent to the end-user. As a matter of fact, it is still not
> totally clear to me. And I would like to find simple document that I
> can read or point people too.
>
> Note that if I would not have asked James them we would not have got
> the first clarifications with money exchanges and not sealed.
> (now I will check carefully the license since james told me that the
> grants fall under academic license).
>
> I thikn that in the long run, cincom should communicate much more
> clearly on the topic. I guess that I will never be impacted by any
> license since my job is not to make money but to make research, but I
> have to know where I put my energy.
>
> Stef
>
>
>

--
Charles A. Monteiro

Steven Kelly

RE: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

From: Nowak, Helge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> how about this (out since years):
> http://smalltalk.cincom.com/prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing

Good info. However, the end of the chain there is the page for requesting actual pricing info:
http://www.cincom.com/us/eng/forms/stproductinfo.jsp
At the bottom it says "By completing this information, you will be automatically subscribed to Cincom's Expert Access e-newsletter."

Forcing reception of spam is a definite turn-off for me. It's also illegal, at least in the EU. From what I saw of that newsletter, I'd say the content is irrelevant to developers. I'd suggest removing the auto-spam altogether, or at least adding an initially unchecked option to subscribe. Just a gentle hint!

Steve

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: stéphane ducasse [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 18:23
> An: Charles A. Monteiro
> Cc: vwnc-list
> Betreff: Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial
>
>
> Hi charles
>
> It makes sense to me.
>
> I was not aware of that possibility.
> In fact I never read any of the licensing possibilities. So this is
> why I encourage Cincom to produce some understandable scenario.
>
> > A customer hires me to do provide an object design for a specific
> > issue etc or to troubleshoot a previous design/problem etc. In my
> > brainstorming I turn to my favorite language IDE (VW) to have a
> > context to my brainstorming , build some sunits etc, you get my
> > drift. After I have collected my thoughts I go back to client and
> > provide him with an analysis of the issues , perhaps including some
> > diagrams that I have created with VISIO or whatever. I charge the
> > customer $1,000.00. I WOULD NOT OWE CINCOM A DIME.
>
> Why?
> Now would it be different if you use Advanced or our tools and
> included screenshots of the UML classes?
>
> > I'm okay with this.
> Me too. I was not aware that we could do that.
>
> > BTW, In one's agreements with Cincom one can separate what revenues
> > that are subject to Cincom "royalties" from what are not. For
> > example, I may have a company that does both Java and VisualWorks
> > development/consulting services.
> >
> >
> > CONCLUSION
> >
> > I'll admit not quite understanding what your particular problem is
> > but I would think it would fall under one of the above scenarios.
> >
> > To me all of the above just makes sense. I'm not saying that you
> > disagree with it. I actually still don't really know what your
> > position is but I believe that there are people that are NOT okay
> > with the above and I just don't get it. Again, I'm not making a
> > specific comment about you.
>
> My point is about having a least problem to explain any model cincom
> wants. If I can say to my colleagues that develop in Java
> their tools that they take no risk developing in VW this would helps
> me. Because let us face, we are SURROUNDED by Java dev
> and people. Of course we can claim that we are so fast that this does
> not matter. But ***daily*** I have to argue and prove superiority
> so I would appreciate that the selling model would MUCH MORE
> transparent to the end-user. As a matter of fact, it is still not
> totally clear to me. And I would like to find simple document that I
> can read or point people too.
>
> Note that if I would not have asked James them we would not have got
> the first clarifications with money exchanges and not sealed.
> (now I will check carefully the license since james told me that the
> grants fall under academic license).
>
> I thikn that in the long run, cincom should communicate much more
> clearly on the topic. I guess that I will never be impacted by any
> license since my job is not to make money but to make research, but I
> have to know where I put my energy.
>
> Stef
>
>
>

Carl Gundel

Re: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

I'd agree with you and go a step further. The reader should not have to
give any personal information away to read all the details about licensing.
Put it all there in the open.

-Carl Gundel, author of Liberty BASIC
http://www.libertybasic.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Kelly" <[hidden email]>
To: "Nowak, Helge" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "vwnc-list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

From: Nowak, Helge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> how about this (out since years):
> http://smalltalk.cincom.com/prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing

Good info. However, the end of the chain there is the page for requesting
actual pricing info:
http://www.cincom.com/us/eng/forms/stproductinfo.jsp
At the bottom it says "By completing this information, you will be
automatically subscribed to Cincom's Expert Access e-newsletter."

Forcing reception of spam is a definite turn-off for me. It's also illegal,
at least in the EU. From what I saw of that newsletter, I'd say the content
is irrelevant to developers. I'd suggest removing the auto-spam altogether,
or at least adding an initially unchecked option to subscribe. Just a gentle
hint!

Steve

Nowak, Helge

AW: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

In reply to this post by James Robertson-3

Dear Steve,

many thanks for that hint! I'll discuss it with the STAR Team.

Cheers
Helge

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Steven Kelly [mailto:[hidden email]]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. April 2006 20:04
An: Nowak, Helge
Cc: vwnc-list
Betreff: RE: AW: Free Software and Cincom Smalltalk Non-Commercial

From: Nowak, Helge [mailto:[hidden email]]
> how about this (out since years):
> http://smalltalk.cincom.com/prodinformation/index.ssp?content=licensing

Good info. However, the end of the chain there is the page for requesting actual pricing info:
http://www.cincom.com/us/eng/forms/stproductinfo.jsp
At the bottom it says "By completing this information, you will be automatically subscribed to Cincom's Expert Access e-newsletter."

Forcing reception of spam is a definite turn-off for me. It's also illegal, at least in the EU. From what I saw of that newsletter, I'd say the content is irrelevant to developers. I'd suggest removing the auto-spam altogether, or at least adding an initially unchecked option to subscribe. Just a gentle hint!

Steve

1234