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 where You are not the author of the application, or confer on others the ability to build standalone applications by any means whatsoever. For the avoidance of doubt, You may not use the Licensed Edition to create or distribute Created Software for other users who are using the Community Edition of LiveCode. This clause is intended to prevent You from providing any facility or service which would reduce or eliminate the requirement for other LiveCode users, including users of the Community Edition, to purchase a Licensed Edition to distribute their own Created Software.
My interpretation (not professional legal advice) is that if you have a commercial license and you decide to build an open source app released under the GPL, such that community edition users can use the code if they want, then you could take patches from community edition users and as long as they assign copyright you can still release the app on the App Store. The reverse situation, where a community edition user has a GPL app and you as a commercial license holder submit a patch, then offer to take a non-GPL copyright license (or ownership of the copyright) and publish on the App Store is clearly not allowed. Anything in between seems like a grey area and would need clarifying with HQ. I'm not interested in finding GPL loopholes but rather the health of the LiveCode ecosystem and removing FUD from open source licensing in general. My concern around LiveCode over-reaching with their derivative work claims (which are significantly stronger than those made by WordPress and Drupal) is that what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law is not in any way altered by the license applied. So, if the original code in an app written by a community edition user is judged not to be a derivative work, then there is nothing that can be altered in the license to fix that "loophole" in LiveCode's intended licensing scheme. 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 holders. I'd really hope to see a more enlightened policy here. It's much like the question of trying to prevent app piracy. There's no point. The people who would pirate were never going to pay anyway. Give people good reasons to do the right thing and pay, rather than try to scare them into doing so with GPL-related FUD. -- Mark Wilcox [email protected] _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
