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:krishnamachari.sudhakar@gmail.com> 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:tudor@tudorgirba.com> 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:damien.cassou@gmail.com> 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.