Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-07 Thread Richard Gaskin 

Kay C Lan wrote:


On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:


There are many open source licenses.


...just because a system succeeds doesn't mean it can't be made better.


Of course.  Ours is an imperfect world.  No single license can serve all 
goals, and all systems can always be improved.


My only point was that the GPL seems a reasonably good fit for LiveCode 
Ltd's goals with its Community Edition.




You offered the success of Linux as proof of the pudding as to how
great GPL is but you failed to mention that the Linux Kernel is
forever held to GPL v 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#GPL_version_3


Yes, Linux uses GPL.

I don't see where my not noting which specific version of the GPL the 
project uses is necessarily a "failure".  I'm just a developer; my job 
does not involve either managing the Linux project nor advocating any 
specific licenses for others to use. I merely share the opinion of 
LiveCode Ltd's counsel that the GPL is a good fit for their goals at 
this time.



As a very separate side matter unrelated to what I wrote, the 
differences between GPL v2 and v3 are indeed interesting, esp. in our 
modern world of rampant software patent abuse.


One of the reasons GPL v2 is especially useful for Linux is that GPL v3 
includes limitations on patent claims, while Linux has been spared from 
being abused by patent trolls by using the more patent-neutral language 
of GPL v2 to build a massive pool of defensive patents - anyone who 
might consider suing Linux over a patent will likely be counter-sued 
into oblivion:



Quite clever of them, though I prefer New Zealand's solution as even 
simpler:  as a general rule their courts don't normally hear cases for 
software patents at all.


But we digress



Nor did you indicate that the majority of GPL software is still GPL v
2 or that the percentage of OSS using GPL is on the decline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Adoption


What I wrote was:

   While the GPL and its derivatives are the most popular, there's
   also the Apache License, Mozilla License, Python's and PHP's
   unique licenses, and many others.

Providing a breakdown of specific versions and variants (LGPL, AGPL, 
etc.) and timeline trends for each is simply beyond the scope of my 
interest.  Besides, too many of my posts are already too long; it hardly 
seems useful for anyone if I were to err on the side of completeness. ;)


If you have feel GPL v2 is a better fit for LiveCode's goals than GPL v3 
I suppose you could email Kevin with the business case for that.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-07 Thread Kay C Lan 
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:57 PM, Richard Gaskin
 wrote:
>
> There are many open source licenses.

Yes, just like there are many political systems - all supposedly for
the betterment 'of the people'. Even in democratic societies the
variations are tremendous - and their success also. And just because a
system succeeds doesn't mean it can't be made better.

>From my own naive perspective such success depends very much on
whether 'libre' is 'inclusive' or 'exclusive'. Where there are 'good
guys' and 'bad guys' then IMO you are only handicapping your own
success. I think the movie Invictus:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1057500/

is a brilliant demonstration of the advantage of eliminating the 'us'
and 'them' attitude. You yourself have stated on this List that those
in charge of GPL, if anyone ever finds a loophole which skirts the
intended path that GPL has chosen to tread then the GPL will be
amended to immediately exclude that loophole.

As I linked previously, and indicated, I tend to agree with Linus
Torvalds that as the GPL has progressed it has become apparent that
it's an 'us' and 'them' kind of license. You offered the success of
Linux as proof of the pudding as to how great GPL is but you failed to
 mention that the Linux Kernel is forever held to GPL v 2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#GPL_version_3

and this wasn't just Torvalds, but the majority of key contributors
realised that GPL v 3 was not the 'Mandela' approach to a world where
both open and closed software had it's place and both could help each
other achieve greatness they couldn't achieve on their own. You also
failed to mention that Torvalds' Git (now a mainstay of LC) is also
firmly GPL v 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28software%29

Nor did you indicate that the majority of GPL software is still GPL v
2 or that the percentage of OSS using GPL is on the decline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Adoption

IMO an indication that whilst the original GPL goal was 'libre', some
started to realise that loophole closing was 'libre' only to those who
were 'white good guys', and it was heading down a more 'us' and 'them'
kind of mentality which was not the 'libre' for developers to choose
$0, $$$, open, closed or mix and match kind of future that Torvalds et
al envisaged would truly benefit everyone.

The reason there are many variations on the 'libre' license, is
because GPL v 3 clearly doesn't get everyone's vote as giving
'everyone' the freedom they are truly looking for in how they write
AND distribute their code. It's an attempt to make a good system
better.

I agree with you, well Ludwig Mies van der Rohe - God is in the
details; you need to read the details and then carefully decide which
license truly gives YOU and EVERYONE ELSE the 'libre' to use and
distribute code.

Or to put it more bluntly, this attitude:

"Richard Stallman and the FSF specifically encourage library-writers
to license under the GPL so that proprietary programs cannot use the
libraries, in an effort to protect the free-software world by giving
it more tools than the proprietary world." -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works

strikes me as blatant, upfront, software apartheid.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread Peter M. Brigham 
On May 6, 2016, at 12:05 PM, John Dixon wrote:

> No Richard... it is not a limitation of the language ! You just have
> a different perspective ...:-)
> 
> Richard Gaskin wrote...
> 'This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" 
> and "libre".'

Off topic, but I have a bumpersticker that makes use of the ambiguity:

If money = speech then speech is not free.

-- Peter

Peter M. Brigham
pmb...@gmail.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread John Dixon 

No Richard... it is not a limitation of the language ! You just have
a different perspective ...:-)

Richard Gaskin wrote...
'This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" 
and "libre".'
 
> To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with
> Indy/Business IDE)
> From: ambassa...@fourthworld.com
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:57:42 -0700
> 
> Bob Sneidar wrote:
> 
>  > On May 5, 2016, at 21:33 , Kay C Lan wrote:
>  >> Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print.
>  >
>  > This is why I am always leary of people who want to change the world.
>  > The devil is always in the details.
> 
> I prefer Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's variant, "God is in the details."
> 
> Neither the invention of the GPL nor its selection among those who use 
> it is in any way accidental.
> 
> Our LiveCode community is comprised mostly of people who have decades of 
> experience using and building exclusively proprietary software.
> 
> In our milieu, the "free" in "free software" is often seen with a focus 
> on price.  But it's important to remember that the GPL expresses no 
> opinion about price at all.
> 
> This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" 
> and "libre".
> 
> With "free software", the "free" is about "libre", or "freedom", the 
> explicit freedoms granted in the license to receive source code, to be 
> able to study it, to modify it, and to share those modifications with 
> your neighbor.
> 
> There are many open source licenses. While the GPL and its derivatives 
> are the most popular, there's also the Apache License, Mozilla License, 
> Python's and PHP's unique licenses, and many others.  There's even a 
> WTFPL (see , though be forewarned about the 
> language you'll find there ).
> 
> There are almost as many different open source licenses as there are 
> proprietary ones.  And like proprietary licenses, each has its own 
> unique terms and conditions.
> 
> One of the reasons the GPL has remained so popular with so many projects 
> is because of the values it represents. When your goal is sharing, the 
> GPL can be a very good choice because it ensures the sharing will 
> continue downstream, that no one can hoard the code released under it.
> 
> If that reflects your own values and your goals for a project, the GPL 
> is a widely accepted solution to make that happen for you.
> 
> But as mostly proprietary-only developers, many in our community view 
> the value of code with different goals, mostly monetary and often 
> specifically with revenues derived from per-user licensing, which 
> requires the code remain concealed from the recipient of the software.
> 
> In my own view, I see no harm in either approach.  Both have a useful 
> place.  But they do represent different models of how value is derived. 
>   While relatively few here see sharing source code as more valuable 
> than being paid to keep it secret, there are large numbers of developers 
> in other corners of the world with different goals, where the value of 
> community contributions outweighs potential license fees.
> 
> It may be tempting for those who work exclusively in proprietary 
> software to dismiss the GPL as idealistic, just as some free software 
> advocates dismiss proprietary software as user-hostile in preventing 
> users from fixing bugs or adding features they need.
> 
> Personally, I see the GPL as a very pragmatic solution when the goal is 
> proliferation.  By ensuring downstream enhancements are shared with the 
> world community, a software released under GPL can only become ever more 
> capable.
> 
> Consider the Internet that deliver this post to you.  Much of the 'Net's 
> infrastructure is run on truly free software, and most of the routers, 
> switches, and servers are running Linux.  Linux is also at the heart of 
> 80% of smartphones, 65% of tablets, most embedded devices, and 95% of 
> the world's supercomputers.  While Windows continues to dominate the 
> desktop, every other form of computing today is largely a Linux story.
> 
> This would not likely have been possible without the GPL.  But by 
> ensuring that any modifications of the software get shared back to the 
> community they came from, Linux has become adapted for a much broader 
> range of use cases than any other OS.
> 
> We can hope that over time we'll see similar community-driven 
> enhancement with LiveCode. And now that v8 is here with Builder, at last 
> we have a scriptable interface to OS APIs and object definitions 
> (Widgets).  So going forward enhancing the LiveCode experience is no 
> longer limited to those proficient in C++.  Anyone who can script can 
> extend, modify, and share.
> 
> And as a dual-licensed system, LiveCode lets us choose either GPL or 
> other licenses depending on our goals for the project at hand.
> 
> -- 
>   Richard Gaskin
>   Fourth World Systems
>

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread Richard Gaskin 

Bob Sneidar wrote:

> On May 5, 2016, at 21:33 , Kay C Lan wrote:
>> Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print.
>
> This is why I am always leary of people who want to change the world.
> The devil is always in the details.

I prefer Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's variant, "God is in the details."

Neither the invention of the GPL nor its selection among those who use 
it is in any way accidental.


Our LiveCode community is comprised mostly of people who have decades of 
experience using and building exclusively proprietary software.


In our milieu, the "free" in "free software" is often seen with a focus 
on price.  But it's important to remember that the GPL expresses no 
opinion about price at all.


This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" 
and "libre".


With "free software", the "free" is about "libre", or "freedom", the 
explicit freedoms granted in the license to receive source code, to be 
able to study it, to modify it, and to share those modifications with 
your neighbor.


There are many open source licenses. While the GPL and its derivatives 
are the most popular, there's also the Apache License, Mozilla License, 
Python's and PHP's unique licenses, and many others.  There's even a 
WTFPL (see , though be forewarned about the 
language you'll find there ).


There are almost as many different open source licenses as there are 
proprietary ones.  And like proprietary licenses, each has its own 
unique terms and conditions.


One of the reasons the GPL has remained so popular with so many projects 
is because of the values it represents. When your goal is sharing, the 
GPL can be a very good choice because it ensures the sharing will 
continue downstream, that no one can hoard the code released under it.


If that reflects your own values and your goals for a project, the GPL 
is a widely accepted solution to make that happen for you.


But as mostly proprietary-only developers, many in our community view 
the value of code with different goals, mostly monetary and often 
specifically with revenues derived from per-user licensing, which 
requires the code remain concealed from the recipient of the software.


In my own view, I see no harm in either approach.  Both have a useful 
place.  But they do represent different models of how value is derived. 
 While relatively few here see sharing source code as more valuable 
than being paid to keep it secret, there are large numbers of developers 
in other corners of the world with different goals, where the value of 
community contributions outweighs potential license fees.


It may be tempting for those who work exclusively in proprietary 
software to dismiss the GPL as idealistic, just as some free software 
advocates dismiss proprietary software as user-hostile in preventing 
users from fixing bugs or adding features they need.


Personally, I see the GPL as a very pragmatic solution when the goal is 
proliferation.  By ensuring downstream enhancements are shared with the 
world community, a software released under GPL can only become ever more 
capable.


Consider the Internet that deliver this post to you.  Much of the 'Net's 
infrastructure is run on truly free software, and most of the routers, 
switches, and servers are running Linux.  Linux is also at the heart of 
80% of smartphones, 65% of tablets, most embedded devices, and 95% of 
the world's supercomputers.  While Windows continues to dominate the 
desktop, every other form of computing today is largely a Linux story.


This would not likely have been possible without the GPL.  But by 
ensuring that any modifications of the software get shared back to the 
community they came from, Linux has become adapted for a much broader 
range of use cases than any other OS.


We can hope that over time we'll see similar community-driven 
enhancement with LiveCode. And now that v8 is here with Builder, at last 
we have a scriptable interface to OS APIs and object definitions 
(Widgets).  So going forward enhancing the LiveCode experience is no 
longer limited to those proficient in C++.  Anyone who can script can 
extend, modify, and share.


And as a dual-licensed system, LiveCode lets us choose either GPL or 
other licenses depending on our goals for the project at hand.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread Dave Kilroy 
Long ago, I was a bit leery of using products recommended by Timothy Leary

> Yes , the devil is in the detail... 'leery', is the word you were looking for 
> ?... :-)



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

RE: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread John Dixon 

Yes , the devil is in the detail... 'leery', is the word you were looking for 
?... :-)

> From: bobsnei...@iotecdigital.com
> To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Subject: Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with
> Indy/Business IDE)
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:56:54 +
> 
> This is why I am always leary of people who want to change the world. The 
> devil is always in the details.
> 
> Bob S
> 
> 
> On May 5, 2016, at 21:33 , Kay C Lan 
> > wrote:
> 
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Monte Goulding 
> > wrote:
> 
> 
> We worked hard with all major copyright holders to not repeat history and
> we are confident to have achieved this goal.
> 
> My understanding of the situation is that many contributors to VLC were
> opposed to the stance of a few zealots at FOSS and were of a similar
> opinion to Linus Torvalds:
> 
> www.cnet.com/news/torvalds-lambasts
> -free-software-foundation/?_escaped_fragment_=#!
> 
> These people appreciated that Apple's code neither added to or detracted
> from VLC and was simply a distribution system - (not unlike a newsagency or
> bookshop). Links to the developers website on the App Store ensured anyone
> and everyone could have unlimited access to the source code of VLC. The
> zealots took Apple to court, although some VLC contributors argued in
> support of Apple. Apple lost, so took the easiest path and simply removed
> all GPL software from the App Store - the only people hurt that day were GPL
> contributors.
> 
> So in a classic paradox, to fulfil their desire to distribute VLC free and
> open to the World, a band of contributors freed themselves of the
> restrictions placed on them by the FOSS zealots, by rewriting VLC under a
> less restrictive open software license, returned it to the Apple Store who
> were more than willing to distribute their work as far and as wide as they
> could.
> 
> Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print.
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
  
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-06 Thread Bob Sneidar 
This is why I am always leary of people who want to change the world. The devil 
is always in the details.

Bob S


On May 5, 2016, at 21:33 , Kay C Lan 
> wrote:

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Monte Goulding 
> wrote:


We worked hard with all major copyright holders to not repeat history and
we are confident to have achieved this goal.

My understanding of the situation is that many contributors to VLC were
opposed to the stance of a few zealots at FOSS and were of a similar
opinion to Linus Torvalds:

www.cnet.com/news/torvalds-lambasts
-free-software-foundation/?_escaped_fragment_=#!

These people appreciated that Apple's code neither added to or detracted
from VLC and was simply a distribution system - (not unlike a newsagency or
bookshop). Links to the developers website on the App Store ensured anyone
and everyone could have unlimited access to the source code of VLC. The
zealots took Apple to court, although some VLC contributors argued in
support of Apple. Apple lost, so took the easiest path and simply removed
all GPL software from the App Store - the only people hurt that day were GPL
contributors.

So in a classic paradox, to fulfil their desire to distribute VLC free and
open to the World, a band of contributors freed themselves of the
restrictions placed on them by the FOSS zealots, by rewriting VLC under a
less restrictive open software license, returned it to the Apple Store who
were more than willing to distribute their work as far and as wide as they
could.

Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-05 Thread Kay C Lan 
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Monte Goulding  wrote:

>
> We worked hard with all major copyright holders to not repeat history and
> we are confident to have achieved this goal.
>
> My understanding of the situation is that many contributors to VLC were
opposed to the stance of a few zealots at FOSS and were of a similar
opinion to Linus Torvalds:

www.cnet.com/news/torvalds-lambasts
-free-software-foundation/?_escaped_fragment_=#!

These people appreciated that Apple's code neither added to or detracted
from VLC and was simply a distribution system - (not unlike a newsagency or
bookshop). Links to the developers website on the App Store ensured anyone
and everyone could have unlimited access to the source code of VLC. The
zealots took Apple to court, although some VLC contributors argued in
support of Apple. Apple lost, so took the easiest path and simply removed
all GPL software from the App Store - the only people hurt that day were GPL
contributors.

So in a classic paradox, to fulfil their desire to distribute VLC free and
open to the World, a band of contributors freed themselves of the
restrictions placed on them by the FOSS zealots, by rewriting VLC under a
less restrictive open software license, returned it to the Apple Store who
were more than willing to distribute their work as far and as wide as they
could.

Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-04 Thread Monte Goulding 

> On 5 May 2016, at 3:34 PM, Monte Goulding  wrote:
> 
> Mozilla Pubic License

Oh dear… that could be something else entirely ;-)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with Indy/Business IDE)

2016-05-04 Thread Monte Goulding 
It appears to be in the store under the Mozilla Pubic License. From a press 
release:

VLC for iOS is fully open-source. Its code will be available online by tomorrow 
and is bi-licensed under both the Mozilla Public License Version 2 as well as 
the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later. The MPLv2 is applicable for 
distribution on the App Store.
We worked hard with all major copyright holders to not repeat history and we 
are confident to have achieved this goal.

> On 5 May 2016, at 3:12 PM, James Hale  wrote:
> 
> In the referenced thread Monte mentioned something about fmpeg and it 
> associated libraries and licensing.
> Today I was notified of an update the VLC and remembered how that is now 
> available on the App Store.
> Looking at Videolan's site, VLC is GPL 2.
> How is it that it can be distributed under Apple's terms and conditions and 
> still be adhering to its GPL terms and conditions?
> Leaving the fact that there is a conflict here the more interesting question 
> to me is why didn't Apple stop it. I know they did pull it when it first came 
> out for iOS and then a second time but it has been back for a while now. I 
> haven't been able to find anything on the Videolan's site to suggest their 
> license has changed so what gives?
> Is their wiggle room here for LC community apps to get up on the App Store?
> 
> James
> 
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode