Hi! After looking at S8 [1], it's clear that it's a fork of Amber [2]. While this is perfectly fine as Amber is released under MIT, I really don't like the statements on the website about the license and origin of the project [3]. S8 doesn't fulfil the MIT license as the copyright of Amber should be clearly stated on the S8 website. Quoting the page: " How/where S8 is different from product/project XXX ? S8 as result of regional scheme of concepts is unique and we don´t know about other formulations similar to S8. It is frequently asked if "S8 source code" is derivative work of other MIT licensed sources (please download and read license terms if it is still your interest). The question is incorrect (and we are free to do not answer incorrect questions here) because it means that the person asking has not reached the understanding of Smalltalk required to adopt a POV consistent with S8 (Smalltalk as not a language). " Moreover, I couldn't find anywhere on the website a link to such a license or any reference to amber being the original project. Stating that S8 is a fork of Amber there, instead of attempting to evade the question, would simply be fair play. As it is right now it looks more like stealing than forking an opensource project. In the world of opensource, I think this is really a shame :-/ Now maybe I'm just too stupid and I " have not reached the understanding of Smalltalk required to adopt a POV consistent with S8"... Cheers, Nico [1] http://u8.smalltalking.net/s8.aspx [2] http://amber-lang.net [3] http://u8.smalltalking.net/