Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Merci, Robert Bien sur… le media et les lines de code n'est pas la meme chose… Others have contacted me off list about this with similar thoughts… seems worth pursuing with the Mothership.. but they are in conference prep mode right now. No better environment than LC for developing the UI/views

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> But now we have no choice but to ask these would be collaborators on front > end stack development to use other tools. Exactly the opposite to > contributing to the "health of the livecode ecosystem." @ Brahmanathaswami i've always felt concerned that GPL should NOT extend to media content

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi Kevin & Richard, Thanks for engaging so positively with this discussion. Let me start by saying that I'm very much on the side of LiveCode succeeding and want to help not just complain from the sidelines. Open source licensing FUD tends to make my blood boil a little, although leaving that asi

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

If that were the case Apple and Microsoft would own everything used on their code and OS. The bigger issues is can the community version be used to compile a project like the the commercial version and the answer is yes it can plus others are allowed to use the code they purchased to run a busines

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I tried to follow this thread as closely as I can, however there are some things still not clear to me regarding TEXT ONLY scripts. This is in regards to the fora and this very list. If we are discussing scripts on here, how are we to judge if the person replying used a community version and thu

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I don’t know what is legal for sure but it seems to me once the code was sold and then Livecode made a commercial product using the code it opens the door for others to use the code in a similar fashion as Livecode since the sold the code and the similar rights went with it. What compiled code is

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JB wrote: > Around a year or so ago I read Apple was thinking > of making xCode open source. If they do then it > seems like they could incorporate Livecode open > source to develope similar features in xCode. > If apple were to do that, it would be under a Free

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Around a year or so ago I read Apple was thinking of making xCode open source. If they do then it seems like they could incorporate Livecode open source to develope similar features in xCode. With their money, attorneys, and laws in different countries they can pretty much use what they want. Th

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On 22/07/2016 18:57, Mark Talluto wrote: On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: If someone wants to try out LiveCode with a view to making closed-source software, they can register for a free trial of LiveCode Indy here: https://livecode.com/trial/ Very cool! This should go a

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > If someone wants to try out LiveCode with a view to making closed-source > software, they can register for a free trial of LiveCode Indy here: > https://livecode.com/trial/ Very cool! This should go a long way to introducing the value o

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

@ kevin Thanks for your careful attention to this. I am clearly out of my depth on licensing issues and have a naively, simplistic look at things. I do want to go on record that I am and always will be "on your side"…. if I were the CFO of Livecode and looked at a graph A) community downloads

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi folks, We do review our licensing from time to time and I will at some point look again at whether we can clarify this further or introduce changes that make it clearer to our end users. I¹m not a lawyer and until this stuff gets tested in court it seems hard to say what will and won¹t stand up

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

For the WE, you might find these links on the issue of applying copyright to programming languages, informative : Can Copyright Protect a Language? Google beats Oracle—Android m

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark - Thank you for taking the time to write up your views on the distinctions between LiveCode Ltd's interpretation of the GPL and those of the Drupal, Wordpress, and Joomla projects. I'm quoting it here in its entirety because I believe it's worth a second read; IMO it represents some of

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I also don't see anything wrong with the GPL license being attached to LC community. i've although thought it was a great way to differentiate. And i find absolutely right and positive that any standalone built with the community version be under GPL, as far as the code is concerned. But, having

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 04:53 PM, Rick Harrison wrote: > Like I said, LC should consider creating their own license then. > > After this little debate, I will never touch any GPL license ever > in the future. In fact, I now consider the community version > of LC to be worthless. I’ve always had

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On 22/07/2016 16:53, Rick Harrison wrote: After this little debate, I will never touch any GPL license ever in the future. In fact, I now consider the community version of LC to be worthless. I’ve always had an indy type license of LC which I’m fine with. I’m just now totally disappointed tha

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Rick Harrison wrote: > If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider > releasing the community version under a license similar to that used > by PostgreSQL, MIT, or create it’s own Community License. Clearly > what they are doing now is creating a mess that is causing confu

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi Mark, Like I said, LC should consider creating their own license then. After this little debate, I will never touch any GPL license ever in the future. In fact, I now consider the community version of LC to be worthless. I’ve always had an indy type license of LC which I’m fine with. I’m j

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi Kay! i'm "stunned" when I read this sentence : > LiveCode the language, just like the AppleScript language, is > proprietary subject to license terms and conditions. It would be helpful if you could precise your source, thanks Is that an extract from the LC license? It would also be he

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Rick Harrison wrote: > If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider > releasing the > community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, MIT, > or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is > cr

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: > It is important to understand that the Company's (LC) 'intention' can > NOT deviate from the GPL v3 legal requirements which the FSF will > enforce, i.e. just because the Company (LC) would like to interpret a > paragraph one way, and allow a ce

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 03:10 PM, Rick Harrison wrote: > If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider > releasing the > community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, > MIT, > or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is >

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider releasing the community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, MIT, or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for th

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Kay C Lan wrote: ... > wrote: >> Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free >> Software. >> If you want to make Free Software apps for mobile devices, target >> Android. > > Hmm, I think this is a common misconception of the situation. Apple is > more than happy to distribut

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Mark Wilcox wrote: > > > My concern around LiveCode over-reaching with their derivative > > work claims (which are significantly stronger than those made > > by WordPress and Drupal) > > In what way(s)? OK, it's not wise to pull too ha

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Erik Beugelaar wrote: > Working as a hired consultant in many teams with colleague developers I have > never met one developer who did not "steal" some code from whatever resource > (internet, books etc) to use it in a project that's needs to get done. Every > deve

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > > "Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free Software. " > > ?? there are 10's of thousands of free apps in the app store. How is that an > "unfertile pasture?" > You started so well and then fell into a

RE: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

sequences after and deal with it. Just my 2 cents. Erik -Original Message- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Kay C Lan Sent: vrijdag 22 juli 2016 06:57 To: How to use LiveCode Subject: Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin] On Thu,

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark Wilcox wrote: Having the investment of a lifetime license, I'm not keen to see LiveCode basing part of their business model on a very dubious interpretation of copyright law, which also restricts the useful sharing of code between community edition users and commercial license

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy > end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode Community > copyright license. > Just to clarify, what you are saying is: if ANY Business or Indy licens

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark Wilcox wrote: > My concern around LiveCode over-reaching with their derivative > work claims (which are significantly stronger than those made > by WordPress and Drupal) In what way(s)? > I'd really hope to see a more enlightened policy here Apparently some clarification would be useful.

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > but first Peter wrote: > > "- If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the > LiveCode Indy end user license agreement" > > ? > > https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/ > > has a check mark next to "Protect your source code" >

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark, your words reflect 100% my position on that epic subject. -- It seems to me a good thing to outline again and again, that any ruling on such a license matter will "set the law" and will most probably override any subsequent change in the license. I do have a legal background, and we're all

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hmm. still a lot of gray edges here. but first Peter wrote: "- If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy end user license agreement" ? https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/ has a check mark next to "Protect your source code" What are

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

So the important clause is this one: b) The ability to create and distribute Created Software is intended for You to use with applications You have created or been substantially involved in developing. You are prohibited from using the Licensed Edition to build standalone applications for others w

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Rick Harrison wrote: > If student A wants to assign or sell student B all copyright rights > for his work for let’s say $1.00 (which is consideration in the legal > sense of then word.) then student B legally owns all copyright rights > to that work. It is treated as though it was a work for hir

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> If student A wants to assign or sell student B all copyright rights for > his work > for let’s say $1.00 (which is consideration in the legal sense of then > word.) > then student B legally owns all copyright rights to that work. It is > treated > as though it Work for hire is a separate (alth

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi Mark, If student A wants to assign or sell student B all copyright rights for his work for let’s say $1.00 (which is consideration in the legal sense of then word.) then student B legally owns all copyright rights to that work. It is treated as though it was a work for hire even though only $1

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> So If student A writes down some code on text wrangle and gives it to > student B who (thanks folks) have an indy license, that belongs to student B > and he can dispose of it as he wishes, open sourced or closed source. > In that case it seems to me that it is just a case of confidence between

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

"" - If the app is open source, this definitely violates either the Apple store agreement or the LiveCode Community copyright license (GPLv3). - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode Community copyright

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Or target those people who have jail-broken their iPads . . . Richmond. On 21.07.2016 00:54, Peter TB Brett wrote: On 20/07/2016 20:53, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: Kay C Lan wrote: " Fortunately one of the parents is extremely supportive and is happy to pony up for an LC Indy License.

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On 20/07/2016 20:53, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: Kay C Lan wrote: " Fortunately one of the parents is extremely supportive and is happy to pony up for an LC Indy License. Is it kosher that this app, built by multiple people using Community, is now licensed by a single Indy holder? Can fu