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 helpful if you could precise a little the consequences of that sentence : what does it mean? Does it mean that all Script Language scripts are in fact "owned" by LC?? So is that a total negation of the copyright law? *I double what I wrote a little above : to my knowledge in law, a language is not copyrightable BY ESSENCE, *and I really do hope that that is not the path that LC would try and make, because I personally totally disagree, on the ground (ethically) and technically as the law stands. The main reason for that strong line in copyrights is the notion of generative capacity : “It is the infinitely generative capacity of a language, the ability to communicate new thoughts and ideas, that makes a set of sounds and grammatical rules into a language,” see:: the Klingon language case <http://consumerist.com/2016/04/14/is-the-klingon-language-protected-by-copyright-paramount-thinks-so> and copyright on a language would hijack all created work. *A language is regarded, and rightly to my view, as a tool for the mind to process information.* And it has long been accepted for the good balance of our societies, that tools maker cannot extend their ownership to goods created by one's tools. And we're talking humanism here and I can feel I'm not the only one around to be rather sensitive to these issues at some point. We all agree to pay for tools : hence the licensing policy of the indie and commercial versions. The script language needs money for tools to make it easier to build useful things. But LC is not only a tool, it's a framework, to promote the use of the script language : hence the move to the community edition on a parallel basis to* spread the use of the script language.* The Script Language (and i don't write the livecode language!) needs ENERGY from a group of users, just like a language needs people to talk it. -- The traditional balance and boundary between these 2 is about visibility : close source or "open" sources, as "readable" by all. That was dead simple and I thought quite operational from my user viewpoint. -- Enforcing some kind of "open source" license along the community version seemed a good move. *BUT Letting the GPL hijack that simple world and turn it into a LEGAL NIGHTMARE* looks to me a very bad move, as it just kills the ENERGY source in people's mind : People will poor energy into it if they feel the're free to think freely and do "ENOUGH THINGS" things freely with it. *And that discussion will reappear every time some LC community user will ask himself the question : ok i've invested some time, I like that, what can I do with that?* So far LC mantra is (hope I get it right though… it's not so clear!) -- you're free at your home -- if you communicate outside your home, then super hyper hard GPL to all content including text and media of a stack file that goes out of your home -- and could even extend to : "and by the way the language you think as common good, is in fact ours!" The mere understanding of the consequences of GPL onto stack content will already burn a lot of NRJ, and finally the awareness of consequences on media will considerably restrict that practicability, that "ENOUGH THINGS"- that matters. *In particular, to my humble view, use of the community in the education environment will stumble on that media GPL issue :* FSF strategy is defendable in the precise domain of reusable code to avoid recoding the wheel housands of time, but may not be applicable to all educative material and medias. We're into different worlds. And that would be a big pain since it is to my view again the main target of the community version, and *the Script language community needs to spread in education, or die out*. /[here in France NO geography teachers will EVER buy a livecode license to output stacks for the kids at their spare time, let that be clear - i've been a publisher of teaching media in France -- they MIGHT take that time on a free Community Version if it is dead simple, and if we put some efforts into that to reach over to them -- by the way, the french LC community just closed, most active members where now retired teachers who steeped in at the time they could freely distribute stacks to their classes, long ago!]/ So in practice, I do praise for *a much softer GPL interpretation* and a good sound clarification and communication on the subject. *That could actually boost Livecode along, or kill it!* -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/On-rev-support-problem-tp4706664p4706886.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ 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
