One small item, I believe we would be talking about 6% of sales revenue
i.e. my understanding is that the license I was describing (VAR I believe)
is based on sales not profit.
-Charles
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 19:25:49 +0100, stéphane ducasse <ducasse(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
On 9 déc. 04, at 16:34, Charles A. Monteiro wrote:
Of course, that is what I said, if you want to
make money with SmallWiki
No you get us wrong.
and don't want to share in the profits then
you must use the Squeak
version. For myself I find it perfectly natural to share my profits
with a company who I use its products in some way. I don't like to
abuse or take advantage of others.
We are the same.
It happens that I know really small companies that have really to pay
attention and this is their choice not mine. :)
For most situations especially if you are a small
company it amounts to
a smaller percentage than the sales tax I have to pay to the state of
NY i.e. worst case it probably amounts to about 6% of whatever item I
may for example sell on my wiki. If you don't want to eat the 6% then
pass it on to your customers, if they turn away from you for 6% then
they just did not like your product enough, unless you were selling
multi-million dollar jet planes in which case maybe 6% starts to become
a drag. BTW, if you are not making money then you are not in a
"commercial" setting, you are doing R&D.
But the message of cincom is not that clear and this is not really my
problem.
Because if a small company is making money but just enough I'm not sure
that 6% to pay on the net income
can work. If the 6% would be on the benefit this would be different.
Now if one is so presumptuous to announce to the
world that your R&D is
so good that it will for sure become a commercial product then one
should pay for one's arrogance and possibly stupidity.
We are not in this setup.
But imagine we are developing reengineering tools: the tools are freely
available but now
is a company authorised to use it without paying a fee or having a
commercial version of VW to run it
when it uses our free tools on their bug software. I do not really know.
Because may be what they are doing
with it is gaining advantage of our tools. I think that from cincom
point of view they do not care since we
are not selling the tools. But this is what marcus was implying.
Of course , if one now gets 1 million dollars in
venture capital ,
forms a LLC etc then that sounds to me like a commercial setting. As
far as the developer's license that is subtracted from your overall
fees to Cincom. You do not need to talk to a Cincom sales rep until you
are ready to make money. If you are a guy in a garage coding but you
are not making money then you are not in a "commercial" setting. You
can hope to eventually be, you can pretend with your friends that you
are, but you are not. So don't tell Cincom that you are. Everything is
allright. Code. When you are ready to make money, pay the people that
help you make money their due. It is just the right thing to do.
For me I really do not care because my goal is not to make money but we
do not want that SmallWiki gets less
participation because it is on VW. So we gave a try in VW and now we are
giving a try on Squeak and we will see
what are the best communities for SmallWiki but we will pay attention
that people can port it from one to the other.
as we did for SmallWiki one.
Stef
-Charles
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 15:16:48 +0100, Marcus Denker <denker(a)iam.unibe.ch>
wrote:
Am 09.12.2004 um 15:09 schrieb Charles A. Monteiro:
I am running a SmallWiki for the NYC Smalltalk
user's group. I can
run it because I am not engaging in commerce i.e. it runs on a
non-commercial license, to that extent it is very clear what one can
and can not do. Not sure why you all are having such a difficulty in
understanding this. If somebody wants to make money with SmallWiki
and finds it offensive to share with the technology partner that
creates the tools which allow one to run and enhance SmallWiki then
said individual would have to use Squeak. BTW, BottomFeeder does not
have "this issue" as you put it because it is a non-commercial
product therefore it can use the "non-commercial" license.
SmallWiki is a non-commercial product, too. Yet everybody *using* it
in a commercial setting has to have a *developers* license.
We asked. This is official Cincom policy. The same is true for other
projects, e.g. Moose and CodeCrawler.
Marcus
-- Charles A. Monteiro
--
Charles A. Monteiro