GPL & NC

Sorry, i know this was discussed some time ago, but i have three very specific questions (it was unclear to me after reading +51 mails from the previous similar thread)

i have VW NC.

1) If i release a class library (under X license) for VW, i would receive a % of money if Cincom make money with my class library?

2) if i release the package under the GPL license, that would prevent everybody of making money using it?

3) what license should i choose if i don't want people to make money with my published packages?

the fact is i can't even think of buying a VW commercial license (it is **very** expensive to me). if i'm "forced" to work with NC, and i want to publish my work, i'd like to stay NC for everybody. Otherwise, i believe i'm working indirectly as a Cincom employee, as they were  (ultimately) making money with my "free" work. That's all, hope i've understood correctly the whole thing.

Andrea

At 11:58 PM 7/19/2006, you wrote:
>Sorry, i know this was discussed some time ago, but i have three
>very specific questions (it was unclear to me after reading +51
>mails from the previous similar thread)
>
>i have VW NC.
>
>1) If i release a class library (under X license) for VW, i would
>receive a % of money if Cincom make money with my class library?

If you release a library under some license, Cincom does not sell it
(unless we negotiate some kind of reseller arrangement).  If you sell
your Cincom Smalltalk derived software, then you need to license with Cincom.


>2) if i release the package under the GPL license, that would
>prevent everybody of making money using it?

The GPL is kind of problematic for Smalltalk.  That said, anyone can
make money off GPL software by supporting it.  Look at how redhat
makes money, for instance.

>3) what license should i choose if i don't want people to make money
>with my published packages?

none that I know of

>the fact is i can't even think of buying a VW commercial license (it
>is **very** expensive to me). if i'm "forced" to work with NC, and i
>want to publish my work, i'd like to stay NC for everybody.
>Otherwise, i believe i'm working indirectly as a Cincom employee, as
>they were  (ultimately) making money with my "free" work. That's
>all, hope i've understood correctly the whole thing.

Unless you arrange to have your library shipped with CST (as a
contributed piece), I don't see how that happens.  A commercial
Cincom license for a Small VAR is $500 per year, which is a
pre-payment on 6% of annual (CST based) revenues.  So unless you
cross $8333 in CST based revenue, $500 per year is it.

>Andrea

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

Andrea Gammachi wrote:
>
> 2) if i release the package under the GPL license, that would prevent
> everybody of making money using it?
>
Correct (meaning making money *by selling it for profit*), however the
GPL talks about libraries and linking and such matters that are not
simply mapped to Smalltalk, so it is a weak license because of this
mismatch. Several packages in the public repository have been published
under the GPL  by Alan Knight (I guess Glorp, and StoreReplication)
where he put in some extra clarifying text because of this. You may want
to have a look at those.


> 3) what license should i choose if i don't want people to make money
> with my published packages?
>
> the fact is i can't even think of buying a VW commercial license (it is
> **very** expensive to me). if i'm "forced" to work with NC, and i want
> to publish my work, i'd like to stay NC for everybody. Otherwise, i
> believe i'm working indirectly as a Cincom employee, as they were  
> (ultimately) making money with my "free" work. That's all, hope i've
> understood correctly the whole thing.

I understand the desire, but personally I moved away from that stance.
I now prefer the MIT license, it allows everybody to use my code
regardless of whether it is for NC or commercial use (including
reselling it for profit).
A positive effect is that I can *stop worrying* about whether my work is
'stolen' because it is now impossible to steal it. Another benefit of
the MIT license is that it is short enough to be read and understood by
non-lawyers. So I see MIT as a lot less trouble than GPL (hey I don't
even have to start these GPL license discussions ;-)



Not a direct answer to your question, but here you have it...

R
-

Do not use GPL. Nobody will ever use your library for serious
programming. In Squeak people use MIT or BSD  (for the same reasons  
than reinout explained) and we banned GPL because of the
transitive possibility of the license.

Stef

On 20 juil. 06, at 05:58, Andrea Gammachi wrote:

---

DISCLAIMER: This email is bound by the terms and conditions described at http://www.key.net/disclaimer.htm

Travis Griggs wrote:
>  I release
> quite a bit of "open source" code to the Smalltalk community. I don't
> even bother with a license. I'm lazy. It's public domain. I don't feel
> I've been ripped off yet. Maybe my stuff is just not worthy of being
> ripped off. Probably the case.

Not worthy? I'd better start scrubbing both our development and
deployment images then...


:-)

R
-

Andrea Gammachi wrote:
> 3) what license should i choose if i don't want people to make money
> with my published packages?
You have the Creative Commons and its flavors:

- shareAlike (sa): force modified version to be distributed under the
same conditions
- nonCommercial (nc): not make profit
- attribution (by): force to cite the author
- noDerivative (nd): forbid modified versions of your product

You can combine those flavours. For example, sa-nc-by if you accept
derivatives of your work.


Bye

Andrea

 

First, you have to recognize that the biggest VW market are the

commercial users. So, if you don’t want people to make money,

even indirectly, off your product then there is not much point to creating

a VW library. You should switch to Squeak instead.

 

My perspective on contributed software is that if I create “free” software

then I don’t put any strings on it. That way everyone benefits. One thing

to consider is that the Smalltalk market is small, if it grows then we

developers benefit because there is continued employment. So, if

your software contribution helps the market grow then in the long run

you benefit. That was the view I took when I wrote the multi-proc UI

software and gave it to Cincom.

 

Terry

===========================================================
Terry Raymond       Smalltalk Professional Debug Package
Crafted Smalltalk
80 Lazywood Ln.
Tiverton, RI  02878
(401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
<http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
===========================================================

---

From: Andrea Gammachi [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:58 PM
To: VWNC
Subject: GPL & NC

 

Sorry, i know this was discussed some time ago, but i have three very specific questions (it was unclear to me after reading +51 mails from the previous similar thread)

i have VW NC.

1) If i release a class library (under X license) for VW, i would receive a % of money if Cincom make money with my class library?

2) if i release the package under the GPL license, that would prevent everybody of making money using it?

3) what license should i choose if i don't want people to make money with my published packages?

the fact is i can't even think of buying a VW commercial license (it is **very** expensive to me). if i'm "forced" to work with NC, and i want to publish my work, i'd like to stay NC for everybody. Otherwise, i believe i'm working indirectly as a Cincom employee, as they were  (ultimately) making money with my "free" work. That's all, hope i've understood correctly the whole thing.

Andrea

Il giorno gio, 20/07/2006 alle 11.34 +0200, Damien Cassou ha scritto:
I think the Creative Commons licenses are meant be used for media
contents, not for software.

        Giovanni

At 02:24 AM 7/20/2006, Reinout Heeck wrote:
>Andrea Gammachi wrote:
>>2) if i release the package under the GPL license, that would prevent everybody of making money using it?
>Correct (meaning making money *by selling it for profit*), however the GPL talks about libraries and linking and such matters that are not simply mapped to Smalltalk, so it is a weak license because of this mismatch. Several packages in the public repository have been published under the GPL  by Alan Knight (I guess Glorp, and StoreReplication) where he put in some extra clarifying text because of this. You may want to have a look at those.

Actually Glorp is under LGPL, rather than GPL. And even with the more limited license I did feel obliged to put in additional explanatory text clarifying that normal Smalltalk library usage was permitted without forcing the calling program to be licensed under LGPL. If I were doing it again, I would not use LGPL, and I may yet even get around to changing the license.  The StoreGlorp code was originally written by John Brant, and put in public domain by him. I haven't changed the license.


--
Alan Knight [|], Cincom Smalltalk Development
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://www.cincom.com/smalltalk

"The Static Typing Philosophy: Make it fast. Make it right. Make it run." - Niall Ross

Personnally i would publish MIT enabling anybody willing to make money
to do it, and enabling anybody wanting to handle himself for free to do it.

What's wrong with Cincom's making money?

Like you, i have no project now justifying the expense of a commercial
licence.

But, if it's the case one day, and I learn there is no more Cincom
Smalltalk because Cincom did not make enough money, I will be very sore.
And that would be bad for Smalltalk in general.

And maybe, if Cincom makes enough money, they can have more agressive
prices, did you ever think of that?

If you would not like Smalltalk to disappear, you'd better fear
commercial licences don't make enough money.

So don't bother to much with licences, publish MIT, let Cincom making
money with commercial customers happy to find a great deal of freeware,
the whole Smalltalk community has to win from such a positive cycle.

Or don't publish in VW at all like already said on this thread.

That's only my personnal advice

Nicolas