On 08/01/2013 11:40 PM, Heather Laine wrote:
Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth would
you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture, hanging it on
the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture, don't look at it!
I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's theirs.
But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect people to
do with it?
I'm open to being educated. Maybe there is some reason someone would do this. I
just … don't get it. Certainly, that was the original rationale behind
providing the revOnline site. To allow users to share their code and their
expertise with others, if they chose to do so. This community has always been
amazingly sharing and helpful to each other.
This is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer. It does not represent any
official position at RunRev.
Regards,
Heather
Well said, Heather!
On 1 Aug 2013, at 19:33, Richmond wrote:
On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:
it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.
Well, I started the thread, and the reaction was both amazing, and, I believe,
healthy; surely the more people
are involved in this sort of discussion the more chance there is of having some
sort of consensus.
If RunRev are presenting themselves as 'open', at least as far as their Open
Source half is concerned, then
this sort of discussion is necessary; and the thing that is really good is that
Kevin Miller has become involved.
Certainly, at the risk of sounding mind-bogglingly naive, I had always assumed
that stuff available on revOnline
was there for the taking; and when I uploaded stuff to the older version (now
obviated) of revOnline
I didn't bother about any licensing documents on the understanding that anybody
who wanted could just help themselves to my code and get on with it.
I have also been rather careful about the bits of code that are "mission
critical" to my commercial product.
Obviously things are not nearly so simple as I fondly imagined.
What precipitated my starting this thread was my spotting, on revOnline, a
color picker stack that
DOES contain an explicit copyright statement.
Richmond.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond <richmondmathew...@gmail.com>wrote:
On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:
This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take
when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
"revOnline and Open Sores"
LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.
Richmond.
______________________________**_________________
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<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
Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
http://www.livecode.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
_______________________________________________
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
