Re: New licensing

Hi Bob, thanks for the info. Could you please expound a little on what you said below, or give an example of how this works or how you use it? It sounds very interesting but I am not sure exactly what you are describing. Many thanks Mark > On 18 Sep 2024, at 6:09 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecod

Re: New licensing

ill operate under the old > license. I have been assured that if I create and distribute an app the last > day of the classic licensing, the distributed apps will continue to function, > so no worries there. Up until sometime in 2027 you should still be good. > > What to do

New licensing

Well I didn’t want to post this on the main list for reasons that will become obvious. First, any apps you create with Classic will still operate under the old license. I have been assured that if I create and distribute an app the last day of the classic licensing, the distributed apps will

Re: Individual licensing questions

ld $50. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On July 26, 2024 6:04:30 AM Kevin Miller via use-livecode wrote: Folks, I'm happy to go on discussing the licensing model in general on here as needed, for example edge cases

Re: Individual licensing questions

-- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On July 26, 2024 6:04:30 AM Kevin Miller via use-livecode > wrote: > >> Folks, I'm happy to go on discussing the licensing model in general on here >> as needed, for

Re: Individual licensing questions

general, not just LiveCode, is set up that >> way. You are actually paying for features ahead of time with the >> subscription model. At least that's how I see it. >> >> I know that's the industry standard now, I just *hate* it, though

Re: Individual licensing questions

features ahead of time with the subscription model. At least that's how I see it. I know that's the industry standard now, I just *hate* it, though. But don't take that as an attack on Livecode, that's just my personal opinion on how software licens

Re: Individual licensing questions

as an attack on Livecode, that's just my personal opinion on how software licensing works these days. From: "Kevin Miller via use-livecode" Sent: 7/29/24 9:36 AM To: How to use LiveCode Cc: Kevin Miller Subject: Re: Individual licensing q

Re: Individual licensing questions

- From: "Kevin Miller via use-livecode" mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> Sent: 7/29/24 7:27 AM To: How to use LiveCode mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> Cc: Kevin Miller mailto:ke...@livecode.com>> Subject: Re: Individual licensing question

Re: Individual licensing questions

o use LiveCode Cc: Kevin Miller Subject: Re: Individual licensing questions From a general business point of view, the business model where someone buys an update every few years is not equitable. Customers expect you to have all the new features or new platform support ready when they arri

Re: Individual licensing questions

Thanks Sean. It’s a big change and we are doing our best to explain it as clearly as we can. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Build Amazing Things On 27/07/2024, 09:07, "us

Re: Individual licensing questions

From a general business point of view, the business model where someone buys an update every few years is not equitable. Customers expect you to have all the new features or new platform support ready when they arrive for their update, yet haven't paid for that to happen. Development costs conti

Re: Individual licensing questions

That’s a superb idea. It’s very much like the one for Unreal Engine 5 I use. Theres is something more like $100,000 though. At that tip over point, it is quite a hike in costs though if you’ve been used to paying nothing and suddenly have to start paying $5000. But, hopefully by then you will ha

Re: Individual licensing questions

ne Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On July 26, 2024 6:04:30 AM Kevin Miller via use-livecode wrote: Folks, I'm happy to go on discussing the licensing model in general on here as needed, for example edge cases or things that aren

Concerning your licensing questions and contacting support

Dear All, Just to add to what Kevin said in his email - if you have specific licensing questions about your particular position, please do email support. If you've already emailed support - thank you, you've done the right thing. Please be patient as we work our way through the large

Individual licensing questions

Folks, I'm happy to go on discussing the licensing model in general on here as needed, for example edge cases or things that aren’t clear in the model, as it helps us to hone it. But at this point if you have individual questions about the costs for you under the new model, please email th

Re: [Virus Error] Livecode Future - LC Server and Web licensing

Server will continue. If that's true, then that brings me to the question of licensing for web deployments. If the application does it's work via the web - e.g. an app like the Meetingspace app from the 2022 conference - what is the license model for that? Thank you. Ray Bennett

[Virus Error] Livecode Future - LC Server and Web licensing

Kevin and Co. - Thanks as always for all you've done and continue to do. Livecode Server didn't get mentioned (that I saw) in this announcement. My assumption is LC Server will continue. If that's true, then that brings me to the question of licensing for web deployments. If

RE: Licensing 6.7.11

Thanks Curry, been in touch with Heather. Having some weird licensing issues. It now affecting other older versions. Heather is all over it. Will update to list when solved. Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -Original Message- From: use

Re: Licensing 6.7.11

Ralph: > Suddenly LC 6.7.11 says my license file has expired > can't download a license file for 6.7.11. > The only versions are 9 and 10? Any ideas? LC 6.7.11 works here, but similar happened once before - Probably LC Licensing backend issue; contact Support! Best

Licensing 6.7.11

Suddenly LC 6.7.11 says my license file has expired. I tried online activation and it does not work. Logged onto the LC website and under my account I can't download a license file for 6.7.11. The only versions are 9 and 10? Any ideas? I'm on a short time line and need to get this job out. Than

Re: LC Licensing and Website

Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 2:06 PM > To: How to use LiveCode > Cc: matthias_livecode_150...@m-r-d.de > Subject: Re: LC Licensing and Website > > I just received an answer from the LC hosting support. Login and licensing > should be possible again. Tried it here already with success. >

RE: LC Licensing and Website

rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -Original Message- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of matthias rebbe via use-livecode Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 2:06 PM To: How to use LiveCode Cc: matthias_livecode_150...@m-r-d.de Subject: Re: LC Licensing and Websi

Re: LC Licensing and Website

Am 20.11.2023 um 20:06 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode: I just received an answer from the LC hosting support. Login and licensing should be possible again. Tried it here already with success. Am 20.11.2023 um 19:57 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode : Me too, but send an email to live

Re: LC Licensing and Website

I just received an answer from the LC hosting support. Login and licensing should be possible again. Tried it here already with success. > Am 20.11.2023 um 19:57 schrieb matthias rebbe via use-livecode > : > > Me too, but send an email to livecode hosting support as urgent,

Re: LC Licensing and Website

via use-livecode > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 1:41 PM > To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode > Cc: Mark Wieder > Subject: Re: LC Licensing and Website > > On 11/20/23 10:29, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote: >> I can't license LC or login to my LC acc

RE: LC Licensing and Website

20, 2023 1:41 PM To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode Cc: Mark Wieder Subject: Re: LC Licensing and Website On 11/20/23 10:29, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote: > I can't license LC or login to my LC account on the website. Anyone else having problems? Yep. It's dead. -- Mark Wie

Re: LC Licensing and Website

On 11/20/23 10:29, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote: I can't license LC or login to my LC account on the website. Anyone else having problems? Yep. It's dead. -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@list

Re: LC Licensing and Website

Same here with the LC Account. Did not try to relicense LC. > Am 20.11.2023 um 19:29 schrieb Ralph DiMola via use-livecode > : > > I can't license LC or login to my LC account on the website. Anyone else > having problems? > > Ralph DiMola > IT Director > Evergreen Information Services > rdim.

LC Licensing and Website

I can't license LC or login to my LC account on the website. Anyone else having problems? Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this u

Re: Licensing model change

> Licensing emails are going out, Did everyone else receive theirs? I still haven’t heard anything. I wasn’t going to push or be impatient but it’s been on my mind. Just wondering if I somehow got forgotten or they at just struggling to get through the tens of paying users. Sean Cole

Re: Licensing model change

Not even close it would seem. For $300 you will get Win/Mac/Lin (like we used to). But now we'll have to pay $300 for each with some weird-as discount applied (maybe). It's very out of whack. I like the model used by xojo that is based on Desktop, Web, iOS and Android. It makes much more sense. Bu

Re: Licensing model change

I'd also be curious how the new model compares to xojo On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:17 PM Mike Kerner wrote: > I was not paying that close attention to all the details. Did LC take the > current community installer down? If they did not, then this act seems odd. > If they did, then I am not surpris

Re: Licensing model change

I was not paying that close attention to all the details. Did LC take the current community installer down? If they did not, then this act seems odd. If they did, then I am not surprised. On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:07 PM Bernard Devlin via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > I s

Re: Licensing model change

I see that some of "the community" have now uploaded dozens of the installers from the old Livecode page to archive.org. https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22LiveCode%2C+Inc.%22 I don't know what LC Ltd's thinking was in deleting the old pages, but clearly some of "the community" are

Re: Licensing model change

Kevin kayaked, >Look what happened to Open Office. It died because no one wanted to work on it. ??? The bulk of the developers bolted and formed LibreOffice from the OO codebase. It’s alive and well--I just downloaded a new version this morning. It isn’t that OO faded or died, but that no-one

Re: Licensing model change

> On 1 Sep 2021, at 10:02, matthias rebbe via use-livecode > wrote: > > Whenever I suggested to people, who used the software for creating internally > for their company, to support LC at least with a Community Plus subscription, > I always got the same answer: Why should I buy a license when

Re: Licensing model change

That’s true Kevin for some business cases - and I am sure you speak for your existing customers. However it does not apply to businesses built around GPL licensed code. Nor does it apply to publicly funded initiative like EU funding, where an open source license is  required to avoid fears of l

Re: Licensing model change

mean the end of my > development hobby. > > Overall I welcome this new approach. If you are using LC for free, please > consider getting on a subscription, especially if you develop regularly. > > Bob S > > >> On Aug 31, 2021, at 09:16 , Mike Kerner via use-livec

Re: Licensing model change

velopment hobby. > > >> > > >> Overall I welcome this new approach. If you are using LC for free, > > please > > >> consider getting on a subscription, especially if you develop > regularly. > > >> > > >> Bob S > > >>

Re: Licensing model change

Thanks Curry, we appreciate the feedback. Hope you feel better soon! Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Develop Yourself On 31/08/2021, 22:28, "use-livecode on behalf of Curry Kenworthy via use-livecode" wrote: Kevin: > Afte

Re: Licensing model change

my development hobby. > >> > >> Overall I welcome this new approach. If you are using LC for free, > please > >> consider getting on a subscription, especially if you develop regularly. > >> > >> Bob S > >> > >> > >>&g

Re: Licensing model change

; On Aug 31, 2021, at 09:16 , Mike Kerner via use-livecode < >> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: >>> >>> I just read and watched Kevin's announcement about LC licensing. >>> The value for us in the OSS license was simply a greater level of >> ass

Re: Licensing model change

tting on a subscription, especially if you develop regularly. > > Bob S > > > > On Aug 31, 2021, at 09:16 , Mike Kerner via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > I just read and watched Kevin's announcement about LC licensing. &

Re: Licensing model change

x27;s announcement about LC licensing. > The value for us in the OSS license was simply a greater level of assurance > that there would be longevity in the event that LC the company failed, as > the source was still there for someone else to pick up. I think that's how > MC -> RR. &

Re: Licensing model change

Kevin: > After 8 years with an open source offering we have come to > the conclusion this is not the way forward for LiveCode. I agree. In 2013 I was on-the-record as an OSSLC skeptic. I urged caution, but my input was summarily brushed aside; "we've already decided with our VIPs" was the mind

Re: Licensing model change

Richmond. > > On 31.08.21 19:16, Mike Kerner via use-livecode wrote: > > I just read and watched Kevin's announcement about LC licensing. > > The value for us in the OSS license was simply a greater level of > assurance > > that there would be longevity in the event that

Re: Licensing model change

ement about LC licensing. The value for us in the OSS license was simply a greater level of assurance that there would be longevity in the event that LC the company failed, as the source was still there for someone else to pick up. I think that's how MC -> RR. So I am disappointed that the

Re: Licensing model change

I don't know your specific license plan and Heather has left for the evening, however generally if we promised something in the past we do honour it. Licensing emails are going out, if you don't have yours by tomorrow feel free to drop us a line in support. Kind regards, Kevin Ke

Re: Licensing model change

What has happened to price lock-ins though? Will they get honoured? I'm still paying for a web deployment that still doesn't work properly yet. What is happening to that? On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 at 17:48, Mike Kerner via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > I did not mean that we co

Re: Licensing model change

I did not mean that we could get it to another firm for commercial use, I meant that we could potentially limp through, ourselves, with the exception of the pieces that were not OSS'd. Most of the time when we ask for source escrow, the fees are insane, if the developer will even discuss it. On Tu

Re: Licensing model change

So I am disappointed that the code will not be out in the open in the event of a business failure The GPL open source license we used never provided this sort of protection due to the terms of the GPL. For that reason, we continued to sell source code escrow licenses to some commercial

Licensing model change

I just read and watched Kevin's announcement about LC licensing. The value for us in the OSS license was simply a greater level of assurance that there would be longevity in the event that LC the company failed, as the source was still there for someone else to pick up. I think that's ho

Re: tsNet licensing error using the business version of LC server

Indeed, LC server Business does not differ from LC server Indy. Anyway, all I would like to achieve is to get access to the extended feature set of tsNet Business on LC server. Would be a pity if this is not possible, as this was one of the main reasons I purchased a LC Business license. Ralf >

Re: tsNet licensing error using the business version of LC server

hrieb Ralf Bitter via use-livecode >>> mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> >>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >>> <mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>>: >>> >>> LC server yields an error on Ubuntu 16.04 Lts using any >

Re: tsNet licensing error using the business version of LC server

ny >> LC server business version and the associated tsNet version: >> >> “external: unlicensed (tsNet)” >> >> This is strange as there is no licensing issue with the Indy version. >> Seems the business license being valid needs to be approved >> somehow, but how

Re: tsNet licensing error using the business version of LC server

rieb Ralf Bitter via use-livecode > mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>>: > > LC server yields an error on Ubuntu 16.04 Lts using any > LC server business version and the associated tsNet version: > > “external: unlicensed (tsNet)” > > This is strange as there is n

tsNet licensing error using the business version of LC server

LC server yields an error on Ubuntu 16.04 Lts using any LC server business version and the associated tsNet version: “external: unlicensed (tsNet)” This is strange as there is no licensing issue with the Indy version. Seems the business license being valid needs to be approved somehow, but how

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

are faced with the same problem : how does the US GPL legal stuff apply in EU within EU copyright tradition and regulations? When copyright was case law construction, the relationship between license contract and law was not so clear. But UE copyritgh and licensing stuff has b

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

ame problem : how does the US GPL legal stuff apply in EU within EU copyright tradition and regulations? When copyright was case law construction, the relationship between license contract and law was not so clear. But UE copyritgh and licensing stuff has been implemented in UK in various laws,

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi Kevin & Richard, Thanks for engaging so positively with this discussion. Let me start by saying that I'm very much on the side of LiveCode succeeding and want to help not just complain from the sidelines. Open source licensing FUD tends to make my blood boil a little, although lea

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

If that were the case Apple and Microsoft would own everything used on their code and OS. The bigger issues is can the community version be used to compile a project like the the commercial version and the answer is yes it can plus others are allowed to use the code they purchased to run a busines

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I tried to follow this thread as closely as I can, however there are some things still not clear to me regarding TEXT ONLY scripts. This is in regards to the fora and this very list. If we are discussing scripts on here, how are we to judge if the person replying used a community version and thu

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I don’t know what is legal for sure but it seems to me once the code was sold and then Livecode made a commercial product using the code it opens the door for others to use the code in a similar fashion as Livecode since the sold the code and the similar rights went with it. What compiled code is

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JB wrote: > Around a year or so ago I read Apple was thinking > of making xCode open source. If they do then it > seems like they could incorporate Livecode open > source to develope similar features in xCode. > If apple were to do that, it would be under a Free

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

. They need to simplify their interface whatever path they take. John Balgenorth > On Jul 22, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Kevin Miller wrote: > > Hi folks, > > We do review our licensing from time to time and I will at some point look > again at whether we can clarify this further or

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On 22/07/2016 18:57, Mark Talluto wrote: On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: If someone wants to try out LiveCode with a view to making closed-source software, they can register for a free trial of LiveCode Indy here: https://livecode.com/trial/ Very cool! This should go a

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> On Jul 22, 2016, at 9:07 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > If someone wants to try out LiveCode with a view to making closed-source > software, they can register for a free trial of LiveCode Indy here: > https://livecode.com/trial/ Very cool! This should go a long way to introducing the value o

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

@ 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)

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hi folks, We do review our licensing from time to time and I will at some point look again at whether we can clarify this further or introduce changes that make it clearer to our end users. I¹m not a lawyer and until this stuff gets tested in court it seems hard to say what will and won¹t stand

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

For the WE, you might find these links on the issue of applying copyright to programming languages, informative : Can Copyright Protect a Language? Google beats Oracle—Android m

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

nd to provide guidance on how that applies to the position LC is in with its dual licensing, sometime soon after the conference. This has been a useful discussion, touching on specifics that are important to all of us. So far, in my own view I haven't seen anything that can't be res

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

I also don't see anything wrong with the GPL license being attached to LC community. i've although thought it was a great way to differentiate. And i find absolutely right and positive that any standalone built with the community version be under GPL, as far as the code is concerned. But, having

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 04:53 PM, Rick Harrison wrote: > Like I said, LC should consider creating their own license then. > > After this little debate, I will never touch any GPL license ever > in the future. In fact, I now consider the community version > of LC to be worthless. I’ve always had

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On 22/07/2016 16:53, Rick Harrison wrote: After this little debate, I will never touch any GPL license ever in the future. In fact, I now consider the community version of LC to be worthless. I’ve always had an indy type license of LC which I’m fine with. I’m just now totally disappointed tha

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

tary work then share back with the core team to keep the LiveCode project going by purchasing licenses. Perhaps as community contributions to the code base increase, once it reaches a substantial level that reduces the core team's considerable overhead they may be in a position to co

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is >> creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for them. > > That would be fatal to LiveCode's business. No-one would need a > commercial license if the engine was MIT licensed. > > I don'

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

d 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

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Rick Harrison wrote: > If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider > releasing the > community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, MIT, > or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is > cr

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Kay C Lan wrote: > It is important to understand that the Company's (LC) 'intention' can > NOT deviate from the GPL v3 legal requirements which the FSF will > enforce, i.e. just because the Company (LC) would like to interpret a > paragraph one way, and allow a ce

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

re doing now is > creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for them. That would be fatal to LiveCode's business. No-one would need a commercial license if the engine was MIT licensed. I don't actually have any problem with the GPL for a dual-licensing model. It'

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider releasing the community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, MIT, or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for th

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Kay C Lan wrote: ... > wrote: >> Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free >> Software. >> If you want to make Free Software apps for mobile devices, target >> Android. > > Hmm, I think this is a common misconception of the situation. Apple is > more than happy to distribut

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

7) No-one can know the actual position for certain because this has never been tested in court. > > I'd really hope to see a more enlightened policy here > > Apparently some clarification would be useful. Don't try to force the GPL on stackfiles created with the communit

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Erik Beugelaar wrote: > Working as a hired consultant in many teams with colleague developers I have > never met one developer who did not "steal" some code from whatever resource > (internet, books etc) to use it in a project that's needs to get done. Every > deve

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > > "Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free Software. " > > ?? there are 10's of thousands of free apps in the app store. How is that an > "unfertile pasture?" > You started so well and then fell into a

RE: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

sequences after and deal with it. Just my 2 cents. Erik -Original Message- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Kay C Lan Sent: vrijdag 22 juli 2016 06:57 To: How to use LiveCode Subject: Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin] On Thu,

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark Wilcox wrote: 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

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy > end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode Community > copyright license. > Just to clarify, what you are saying is: if ANY Business or Indy licens

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Mark Wilcox wrote: > My concern around LiveCode over-reaching with their derivative > work claims (which are significantly stronger than those made > by WordPress and Drupal) In what way(s)? > I'd really hope to see a more enlightened policy here Apparently some clarification would be useful.

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: > but first Peter wrote: > > "- If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the > LiveCode Indy end user license agreement" > > ? > > https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/ > > has a check mark next to "Protect your source code" >

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

we're all in the same boat : there are some pieces of law that just apply. And in our field copyright is the basic block on which all licensing is built. If some ruling goes against the wish of LC, we'll just have to do with it. And I do not find particularly healthy and positive an

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Hmm. still a lot of gray edges here. but first Peter wrote: "- If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy end user license agreement" ? https://livecode.com/products/livecode-platform/pricing/ has a check mark next to "Protect your source code" What are

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

. 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 c

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

if the current wording of either license later proves unenforceable that will be a very brief moment, since as Mark Waddingham noted during the last tediously lengthy discussion on licensing a few months ago: I can say for certain that if that does happen then we will immediately chang

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

> If student A wants to assign or sell student B all copyright rights for > his work > for let’s say $1.00 (which is consideration in the legal sense of then > word.) > then student B legally owns all copyright rights to that work. It is > treated > as though it Work for hire is a separate (alth

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

dence between co-contributors has no legal basis here. > > I continue to believe that despite the obvious struggles LiveCode is > having getting enough licensing revenue, they're shooting themselves in > the foot by trying to over-reach on claiming community users code is a > deriv

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

n substantial parts of it yourself. Confidence between co-contributors has no legal basis here. I continue to believe that despite the obvious struggles LiveCode is having getting enough licensing revenue, they're shooting themselves in the foot by trying to over-reach on claiming community use

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

"" - If the app is open source, this definitely violates either the Apple store agreement or the LiveCode Community copyright license (GPLv3). - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode Indy end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode Community copyright

Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Or target those people who have jail-broken their iPads . . . Richmond. On 21.07.2016 00:54, Peter TB Brett wrote: On 20/07/2016 20:53, Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami wrote: Kay C Lan wrote: " Fortunately one of the parents is extremely supportive and is happy to pony up for an LC Indy License.

  1   2   3   >