ining example.
https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html Enjoy! Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4702006.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive
Robert Mann wrote:
> GPL is a very special kind of automatic contract that is attached
> to a piece of work and which describes what the receiver of that
> piece of work can or not do with it.
>
> As such it is a very special contract in the world of contracts
> because it does not require the ag
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Robert Mann wrote:
> << I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
> distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully
> would need to be licensed in a GPL compatible license.>>
>
> Hi Monte, I believe (!) that t
e licensed in a GPL compatible license.
>
> Cheers
>
> Monte
> ___
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode@.runrev
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://li
I've hesitated to wade in on this but I think LiveCode's "official"
interpretation of the GPL is wrong and also a mistake. I thought that
there was a policy of encouraging those that produce libraries for other
developers to also dual-license them - I didn't realise that was only
supposed to be all
;s.. none of my business...
I just needed to know where to stand on.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701870.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archiv
Mark Wieder wrote:
> Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes,
> I actually do read these things) that started "Neither party will
> publicly disclose the existence of this document..." I recoiled,
> this caused a huddle of half a dozen people for several minutes,
> the comp
arate content not welcomed as being outside the scope of the GPL mantra
as they see it??? Thanks for confirming that.
Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Summary-Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701858p4701867.html
Sent from
On 03/01/2016 09:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
I have been trying to follow this thread, not always successfully, but
common sense tells me:
Heh.
Common sense in a discussion of legal things.
Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes, I
actually do read these things) that
Hi all,
There has been a long thread discussing a number of different aspects
relating to licensing and pricing. Thank you all for your input! In the
interests of clarity, here is a summary of our position on the matters
discussed.
PRICING
~~~
We are raising our prices - yes. We are not
Hi all,
There has been a long thread discussing a number of different aspects
relating to licensing and pricing. Thank you all for your input! In the
interests of clarity, here is a summary of our position on the matters
discussed.
PRICING
~~~
We are raising our prices - yes. We are not
y thanks all and I hope it
can help others have a clearer view of the impact of licensings schemes in
their plans.
RObert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701848.html
S
On 01/03/2016 23:58, Robert Mann wrote:
== And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both tools for
the same code. In practice, can I code part of an application in the
community and part of it in the closed IDE. If not, please do precise if
there are markers somewhere that are us
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:06 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> Two hypotheticals:
>
> 1. I create a viewer app to display my original artwork as part of my
> job-seeking resume. The viewer seems useful so I decide to distribute it to
> others so they can make their own resumes. I include at least som
On 3/1/2016 11:41 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay
wrote:
Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff?
I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it func
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff?
I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully
would need to be licensed in
On 3/1/2016 9:53 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
If livecode's wants that all stacks and content made with the Community
version be fully GPL3 compatible,
all media used in a stack must be under a CC BY-SA 4.0 type license, which
is directly compatible with GPLv3.
I have been trying to follow this threa
resting for all to know what can
be done and what cannot be done with the community version.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701826.html
Sent from the Revolution - User ma
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:41 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> So basically, all clients of any indie developer have to buy/get their own
> license for their product.
No as far as I’m aware clients only need to get their own license if they are
also a developer. If the clients aren’t involved in the appl
y of that discussion, issues and solutions to make
good use of this NRJ)
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701822.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list a
> MonteG wrote:
> Well.. it depends on what he’s apologising for ;-)
LOL!
JimL
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.co
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:57 PM, Jim Lambert wrote:
>
>> Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because
>> I'm
>> trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60.
>
> Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal!
Well.. it depends on what he’s apologising for ;-)
> RichardG wrote:
>
> Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because I'm
> trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60.
Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal!
Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@
Robert Mann wrote:
> RE : issue : does livecode consider that all illustrative material
> & text etc in a stack to their view fall under GPL
I had thought Mark Waddingham had addressed that. When media is related
to the functionality, such as an icon, that would seem reasonable to
expect that
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> 2) if you do not make it public, than when you're ready, you're free to turn
> for help to an indie/pro developer to finish it up and prepare it for iOS
> launch under whatever license suites you.
I refer you to clauses 5 b, d, f and h of the
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 12:58 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> So all coding would be available to all of course. But these copyrighted
> elements will not be GPL compatible because as simple as it is french law
> does not allow an author to push away his copyrights.
Perhaps you are confused between copy
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701816.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit thi
-
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701814.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
Robert Man wrote:
> == And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both
> tools for the same code. In practice, can I code part of an
> application in the community and part of it in the closed IDE.
The GPL is a distribution license; it doesn't affect anything you do in
your home o
Matt Maier wrote:
> Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
> written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
> colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
> cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusio
Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusion.
It's worth noting that m
Robert Mann wrote:
> Coming back to Livecode OS I'm really surprised that nobody seem to have
> considered stacks as being not only programs but multimedia interactive
> media, and the related legal stuff like copyright of these sources.
>
> That is the basic in any book publishing see :
>
http
Mark Waddingham covered this in his post:
Whilst the GPL can be used to cover content there are more (GPL compatible)
suitable ones. The main problem with applying the GPL to content is deciding
what constitutes the 'source code'. Indeed, I believe there is an FAQ on the
FSF site about such thi
Matt Maier wrote:
> Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the
> difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief,
> Free Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right"
> that software be liberated. Open Source Software does special thin
track the IDE used.
Many thanks, I hope we can close this (long!) thread soon with practical
answers to these questions.
Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701803.html
Sent from the Revol
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701800.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visi
Robert Mann wrote:
> 1) my personal conclusion reading these is that the assumption you
> make about stack files falling under GPL is.. questionable, but..
> arguable, particularly if there are elements of interfaces buttons
> so on that would link to the engine. And the more intricated these
> b
I don't think that's true. The Wordpress plugin author doesn't use Wordpress to
actually type out the code yet it is still covered by the GPL.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 10:26 AM, Matt Maier wrote:
>
> So, I supposed in theory (disclaimer: IANAL)
> if you wrote absolutely everythi
Robert did you read the quote I sent yesterday from the horses mouth? I very
much doubt it would be profitable for anyone to take a different position than
LiveCode Ltd on whether a stackFile is considered a plugin and therefore
covered by the GPL. I have to say that I myself was unsure of this
governed by the GPL
license which only covers CODE.
Again if live code see it or interpret it differently please do say so.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701796.html
Sent from
if it did, I wonder what they say about all those lines written in
> EMACS.
>
> To me that argument is kind of "tiré par le cheveux" as we say in french.
> (something like.. stretched out?).
>
> I love my android phone...
>
>
>
>
&
y in french.
(something like.. stretched out?).
I love my android phone...
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701790.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_
r to go into the iOs model, you need :
> -- to do it yourself (if calling help from an indy is banned!)
> -- invest in the tool 1000 bucks, plus..
> -- invest time in trying out things with a stange spread out documentation
> here and there.
> -- deal with mister apple and the nice
Robert Mann wrote:
> Behing the great idea of a Open SOurce, it is surpassing to find
> so much barriers being built around it.
As Peter explained, for most use cases it's not all that deep.
But for edge cases all licenses can be complex, open source and
proprietary alike.
The only reason so
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> If memory serves, the LC team has (had?) a service that would build
> for iOS for you as well as help with all the back-end Apple
> certification, etc. Is that still around?
I don't believe so. As I wrote in this thread two days ago:
> What I questionned is that we're
gularly see in
the forum..
Mumm.. sounds great!!
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701775.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list arc
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701775.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
On 3/1/2016 2:09 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada
wrote:
Why not publish your Apps for iOS using a Publisher Partner?
Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner selected among our very own LiveCode
fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarte
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 7:38 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
> That "someone" would be violating the terms and conditions of their Indy (or
> Business) license.
>
> If they were *lucky*, they would promptly find that they didn't have their
> license any more.
>
> Needless to say, anyone trying such
This doesn’t capture my part in this conversation. Personally, I am unconcerned
about protecting my code/projects and I’m very happy to publish using the GPL
license. But . . . BIG BUT . . . Apple won’t accept GPL, and I cannot afford
the ever increasing price of the commercial license as a hobb
On 01/03/2016 20:18, RM wrote:
If by a "Publisher Partner" you mean getting someone who owns a licence
to the Commercial version
of Livecode to build you stacks from your standalones, that (while
possibly not being illegal) seems
sneaky and under-hand.
I suppose someone will try this trick soon
On 1.03.2016 22:09, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
Why not publish your Apps for iOS
using a Publisher Partner?
Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
selected among our very own
LiveCode fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarter
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
>
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected among our very own
> LiveCode fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarter and I believe the discussio
Yes, but unnecessary with the current Community Version. You can “publish” to
your own (and other select) devices w/o jail-breaking them.
Roger
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 2:23 AM, RM wrote:
>
> This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not necessarily a
> bad thing.
>
> Richmon
> • What can we/or can't we do with the Open Source version
> • Where does the commercial version step in
>
> So far, the Q/A on live code site that give examples only deals with the
> CODE and not the content.
The GPL requires that if you distribute your work, you distribute with
it everything n
So far, the Q/A on live code site that give examples only deals with the
CODE and not the content.
Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701718.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mai
This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not
necessarily a bad thing.
Richmond.
On 1.03.2016 03:32, Roger Guay wrote:
Monty,
I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with
anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC.
Hi all,
I have read most of this message thread too and for me personal this discussion
is not about licenses etc.
In my opinion this discussion fired up just because of MONEY (no news btw) and
emotions (Apple/Hypercard/LiveCode).
Enterprise users of LC will not have any problem to pay up to 9
Thanks for clarifying Mark
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 7:07 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> There are no gray areas here.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manag
Usual IANAL terms apply :)
On 2016-03-01 06:21, Monte Goulding wrote:
My reading of this is that any content embedded in a stackFile should
be licensed under the GPL. I could be wrong as I’m also not a lawyer!
I would have thought that the spirit of the license that it applies to
everything the
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:05:51 -0800 (PST), Alejandro Tejada wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have read most of this message thread,
> so please pardon me if someone has
> proposed this before:
>
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada
wrote:
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected among our very own
> LiveCode fellow developers.
>
I don't think that's allowed in the ELUA
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca.
-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701706.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
Robert you may like to take the following snipped quote from Mark Waddingham
into consideration in your analysis of how GPL applies to stackFiles:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems wise to at least provide some guidance in this
case. Ultimately, it can only be guidance as we did not write the GPL
vidual included?
>> -- what about the trade marks eventually?
>>
>> What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright
>> protection
>> for some elements.
>> There would be a kind of conflict there.
>>
>> That is why, I thought it would
My apologies to you and Monte, if I sounded too defensive.
I do hope that this idea of a non-profit/give-away app license will not be
summarily dismissed. It just might be a benefit to all of us.
Cheers,
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> I know you're a support
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 3:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism.
For the record so did I and neither did I ;-)
> I was just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would
> include. I guess I did miss your original sugges
I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism. I was
just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would
include. I guess I did miss your original suggestion. I also wonder how
a hobbyist license should be enforced, or if it should just be an honor
system.
Well, what I suggested a few posts back was a license for non-profits and
give-away apps. But, I completely understand if that turns out to be difficult
to police. I’m only trying to help here!
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:45 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay
On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream
for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?
Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides they're a
hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little farther. What
restrictions
Maybe they could sell one-time exceptions. Like, give Livecode $100 and you
can compile one version of one app closed source. So many options.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
> >
> > Once more, I point out that this migh
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
>
> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!!
> Does it hurt anyone?
I guess it could hurt everyone that depends on the platform if it undercut the
Indy license too much. One thing we know for sure is that wi
What estimate? I did say "might" as I really have no idea what y'all can afford
:-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:10 PM, [-hh] wrote:
>
> Monte, Roger's question is clear. Why don't you answer it?
> And show us the the data that's the base of your estimate?
Monty,
I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with
anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC. I’ll get
along with whatever LC brings to my future. But you know better than I, that
Apple is not going to be moved. So why not make lemona
My email wasn't displayed, perhaps because a suspected iPhone?
No, No - I didn't sent this from anybody's iPhone ;-)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
>>> Monte G. wrote:
>>> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful
>>> of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Roger G. wrote:
>> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and
>> IOS in you
Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you could
publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something to take up
with Apple.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:39 AM, Roger Guay wrote:
>
> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac
Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in
your estimate?
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful of
> users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Commu
I believe the monthly subscription was dropped at the time of the open source
release for exactly those reasons. Funnily enough LiveCode developers need to
pay the bills too so need to avoid enabling people to game the system. One of
the issues of course is that there really might only be a hand
and more in effect it is
> vital. A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
> rights.
>
> Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced
> and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same
> way??
>
>
On 1.03.2016 00:16, Roger Guay wrote:
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this
is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.
Cheers,
Roger
That, now, makes sense. A sort of halfway house.
There was (amidst the plethora of purchasing plans that ha
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this
is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.
Cheers,
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
> tool/license that would
Robert, I appreciate your thorough thoughts on this. You covered a lot
of ground, and you seem to have your mind well made up on open source
license options so I won't try to convince you of anything here, just
providing some links and background info for others who may share
questions along t
largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
rights.
Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced
and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same
way??
best to all,
Robert
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolut
Richmond:
I also find it hard to appreciate the seriousness of the problem. Seems like
much ado about very little.
Best,
Bill
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, RM wrote:
>
> Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming languages
> such as PASCAL and C++
> are as FREE as the ai
Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming
languages such as PASCAL and C++
are as FREE as the air. As long as a language remains Unfree it is
unlikely to be adopted widely.
While Runtime Revolution / Livecode have, until comparatively recently,
only had a closed source vers
While doing some research on Xanadu and Memex this weekend I came across
this video of Bill Atkinson which seemed relevant to some of our recent
threads here about the value of code:
"HyperCard was always an authoring environment, it
was never just browsing. I didn't separate the guys
87 matches
Mail list logo