On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> There's lots of different open source licenses but I don't think I've ever
> read one that said you were required to accept contributions. Actually the
> LiveCode IDE is a good example of this right now and probably for a
> significant amou
On 31/07/2013, at 9:01 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:
> Not entirely on topic but on reading the animation engine post on the forum
> about this, I note that there is a source code repository for folks who
> would like to make changes to the open source version. Is this a
> requirement of supplying an
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
> Now RunRev actively showcasing inside LiveCode what extensions are
> available for the platform whether sold by them or not is another matter
> and could only be a good thing for them as far as I can see.
Not entirely on topic but on read
On 31/07/2013, at 7:53 AM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
> What do you think if we ask to RunRev
> to include many open source plugins with
> every LiveCode Community edition?
The currently included plugins do definitely need a cleanup from both a
licensing and maintenance perspective. I'd suggest t
ance!
Al
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-Source-plugins-and-externals-tp4668157.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-live
