It does sound like that's what it's a reference to. I note that the
Personal Use License bars an organization rolling out Cincom VW / OS
applications "for any revenue generating purpose or
operation of any business venture".
If someone was previously of the impression that the Non-Commercial
license included the right to deploy applications for revenue generating
purposes or operating a business I think they were mis-interpreting the
intent of the license.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S Krish <mailto:[email protected]>
4 November, 2011 7:06 AM
I guess, this seems like a reference to the Cincom change in license
format from:
Non-Commercial to a Personal Use license that in effect bars any use
of an organization rolling out Cincom VW / OS applications without
paying the license. Personal license now dictates only an individual
in his own personal single workstation having / using VW.
Ofcouse the point about American co having bought Smalltalk seem out
of synch as it occured a decade back.
There is a long list of email chain on the VW list that allows lot of
stuff despite the legalese, but I guess it is still muddy and does
attract the legal notices on various organizations.
******************************
But I hope there is no real danger of Pharo / Squeak attracting any
such provisions :
"O/riginal Apple code, which is governed by the //Apache License/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License>/./
/Originally, Apple actually released Squeak under a license called the
"Squeak License." While source code was available and modification
permitted, the Squeak License contained an //indemnity clause/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity_clause>/that prevented it from
qualifying as true //Free and Open Source Software/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_Open_Source_Software>/./
/In 2006, Apple relicensed Squeak twice. First, in May, Apple used its
own //Apple Public Source License/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License>/, which
satisfies the //Free Software Foundation/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation>/'s concept of
a Free Software License ^[6]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeak#cite_note-5> and has attained
official approval from the //Open Source Initiative/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative>^/[7]/
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeak#cite_note-6> /as an Open Source
License."
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tudor Girba <mailto:[email protected]>
1 November, 2011 9:13 AM
Oh, my God! I will have to delete every piece of Smalltalk evidence!
Ah, but I guess it will be a while until they get to Switzerland. I
just hope they do not catch me in Argentina.
Doru
--
www.tudorgirba.com
"Some battles are better lost than fought."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Cassou <mailto:[email protected]>
1 November, 2011 6:12 AM
I just received this email:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
I heard some rumors about Smalltalk. Apparently, an american
enterprise bought Smalltalk and is trying to make money by sueing
users. Therefore, they changed the licence agreements (and maybe other
stuff). In my company we have a strict interdiction to use Smalltalk.
