@ 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 next to
B) the annual revenue stream for licensed editions
and if B <= (total operations budget, + reasonable compensation packages and
party money for the team + funds for on-going development/innovation.)
Then obviously, we have a problem.
Good luck with finding a solution where we can freely advocate for LiveCode
adoption, in an ocean where commercial and free code swim together virtual
indistinguishable for 75% of the developers (students, teachers hobbyists, team
leaders), like me who have no clue about licenses and just "go to work to get
things done."
What the solution is, I don’t know… but the current EULA clearly works against
your stated goal (I recall that video interview) "make LiveCode one of the ten
most popular languages in the world"
BR
Kevin wrote:
It was one of our longer
meetings, in which we reviewed the specific examples Kay,
Bramanathaswami, and others have presented.
_______________________________________________
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
