That would mean that *running* an Open Source
application requires you
to buy a
*developer* license.
this does not make sense, BottomFeeder is a VisualWorks open source app
which is quite popular and nobody to my knowledge has
had to pay a cent for it.
Now Cincom is a company in the business of making money which I am very
happy that it is. For one it keeps a crew of very talented Smalltalk
engineers employed developing seriously probably the most powerful
enterprise development platform available. So if company X makes money
because they use an open source VW app which by definition they did not
pay any monies upfront for I personally think that it is appropriate to
pay Cincom their due. I may be wrong but I think that the Cincom business
model in a nutshell boils down to this -- if you make money then Cincom
makes money , if you don't then Cincom does not.
-Charles
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 09:28:04 +0200, Marcus Denker <denker(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
>
> Am 23.08.2004 um 09:15 schrieb Thomas Bernitt:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I was on vacation the last weeks and now I tried to find a more concrete
>> answer and I want to add another yes-no-question:
>>
>> -If a company wants to run VW on a server for internal use, and want to
>> develope additional smallwiki-functionality, do I need to pay or not?
>>
>> We had talks on the cebit this year with cincom to put this question to
>> them
>> - and the answer we got was 'yes, you have to pay'. In this case we has
>> to
>> pay a developer license at great expense.
>>
>> This topic demands a conclusion!
>>
>>
>
> If that is true (that you have to pay) then VW is useless for *any* kind
> of
> Open Source/Free Software development.
>
That would mean that *running* an Open Source
application requires you
to buy a
*developer* license.
>
> If that is true, People should just port their stuff to Squeak and
> forget about VW.
>
> Marcus
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/m2/