I shall too, for myself, just apply the rules stated directly or indirectly
by livecode. These were not, at all, as crystal clear as it seemed.
And that is precisely why I took time to research, clarify and exchange
here.
[ Actually, there was a last issue raised, still un-cleared : I still do n
Robert Mann wrote:
> GPL is a very special kind of automatic contract that is attached
> to a piece of work and which describes what the receiver of that
> piece of work can or not do with it.
>
> As such it is a very special contract in the world of contracts
> because it does not require the ag
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Robert Mann wrote:
> << I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
> distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully
> would need to be licensed in a GPL compatible license.>>
>
> Hi Monte, I believe (!) that t
<< I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully
would need to be licensed in a GPL compatible license.>>
Hi Monte, I believe (!) that this belief is kind of a key issue in
attempting to identify the
yap.. in that respect.. with all respect to live code and every team member..
I honestly earnastly was astonished by the virulence of the clause
forbidding any tier to take a community work and turn it into a commercial
application.
I sort of "naively" believed that there was quite a good positive
Mark Wieder wrote:
> Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes,
> I actually do read these things) that started "Neither party will
> publicly disclose the existence of this document..." I recoiled,
> this caused a huddle of half a dozen people for several minutes,
> the comp
On 03/01/2016 09:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
I have been trying to follow this thread, not always successfully, but
common sense tells me:
Heh.
Common sense in a discussion of legal things.
Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes, I
actually do read these things) that
Spot on! Thanks Jacqueline, That is exactly the choice I have :
1. make a viewer of a special kind of media aggregate with the community
version under GPL
& deliver these media aggregate in a separate file under whatever license.
(plus i'll document that format so that others can produce such cont
On 01/03/2016 23:58, Robert Mann wrote:
== And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both tools for
the same code. In practice, can I code part of an application in the
community and part of it in the closed IDE. If not, please do precise if
there are markers somewhere that are us
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:06 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> Two hypotheticals:
>
> 1. I create a viewer app to display my original artwork as part of my
> job-seeking resume. The viewer seems useful so I decide to distribute it to
> others so they can make their own resumes. I include at least som
On 3/1/2016 11:41 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay
wrote:
Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff?
I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it func
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff?
I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not)
distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully
would need to be licensed in
On 3/1/2016 9:53 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
If livecode's wants that all stacks and content made with the Community
version be fully GPL3 compatible,
all media used in a stack must be under a CC BY-SA 4.0 type license, which
is directly compatible with GPLv3.
I have been trying to follow this threa
RE : issue of including copyrighted media into a stack.
<< The creators of the
works retain copyright even as they offer specific rights with regard to
distribution to others.
No distribution license is a transfer of copyright. Not in film, not in
software. >>
So.. did my homework again, he
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:41 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> So basically, all clients of any indie developer have to buy/get their own
> license for their product.
No as far as I’m aware clients only need to get their own license if they are
also a developer. If the clients aren’t involved in the appl
OUps!! that IS DAMN CLEAR! By Jove!!
So ok.. fine.. as one could rephrase the situation :
2) if you do not make it public, than when you're ready, you're free to
a) buy a closed commercial license
and THEN
b) turn for help to an indie/pro developer to finish it up and prepare it
for iOS la
> MonteG wrote:
> Well.. it depends on what he’s apologising for ;-)
LOL!
JimL
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.co
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:57 PM, Jim Lambert wrote:
>
>> Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because
>> I'm
>> trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60.
>
> Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal!
Well.. it depends on what he’s apologising for ;-)
> RichardG wrote:
>
> Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because I'm
> trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60.
Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal!
Jim Lambert
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@
Robert Mann wrote:
> RE : issue : does livecode consider that all illustrative material
> & text etc in a stack to their view fall under GPL
I had thought Mark Waddingham had addressed that. When media is related
to the functionality, such as an icon, that would seem reasonable to
expect that
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> 2) if you do not make it public, than when you're ready, you're free to turn
> for help to an indie/pro developer to finish it up and prepare it for iOS
> launch under whatever license suites you.
I refer you to clauses 5 b, d, f and h of the
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 12:58 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> So all coding would be available to all of course. But these copyrighted
> elements will not be GPL compatible because as simple as it is french law
> does not allow an author to push away his copyrights.
Perhaps you are confused between copy
Ok, fine.. that is.. somehow more "logical" !!
So that leads to 2 practical consequences :
1) what seems to be important is the timing of making publicly available
some code :
-- if you "release" some code under GPL for testing out an app
-- and than later on turn to the closed IDE to produce a c
RE : issue : does livecode consider that all illustrative material & text etc
in a stack to their view fall under GPL
<< I suppose if your goal was to write LiveCode scripts and publish them as
a printed volume for your coffee table that might make a very good analogy.
>>
No, in my case I've got
Robert Man wrote:
> == And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both
> tools for the same code. In practice, can I code part of an
> application in the community and part of it in the closed IDE.
The GPL is a distribution license; it doesn't affect anything you do in
your home o
Matt Maier wrote:
> Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
> written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
> colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
> cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusio
Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusion.
It's worth noting that m
Robert Mann wrote:
> Coming back to Livecode OS I'm really surprised that nobody seem to have
> considered stacks as being not only programs but multimedia interactive
> media, and the related legal stuff like copyright of these sources.
>
> That is the basic in any book publishing see :
>
http
Mark Waddingham covered this in his post:
Whilst the GPL can be used to cover content there are more (GPL compatible)
suitable ones. The main problem with applying the GPL to content is deciding
what constitutes the 'source code'. Indeed, I believe there is an FAQ on the
FSF site about such thi
Matt Maier wrote:
> Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the
> difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief,
> Free Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right"
> that software be liberated. Open Source Software does special thin
Thanks for your piper mail link. I found your article very informative (and a
breeze to read!).
I'll retain that what's actually written in the GPL license.. is like toilet
paper
What counts is the creators position... Fine.
And that'll close the subject of the status of the stack files for me t
But.. but.. ???
<< With respect to your Question 2, the Indy license doesn't have to
specifically forbid a service where someone with a freer license compiles
code on your behalf. You can't build an actual Livecode application without
using the IDE, so if you used the Community IDE your ap
Robert Mann wrote:
> 1) my personal conclusion reading these is that the assumption you
> make about stack files falling under GPL is.. questionable, but..
> arguable, particularly if there are elements of interfaces buttons
> so on that would link to the engine. And the more intricated these
> b
I don't think that's true. The Wordpress plugin author doesn't use Wordpress to
actually type out the code yet it is still covered by the GPL.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 10:26 AM, Matt Maier wrote:
>
> So, I supposed in theory (disclaimer: IANAL)
> if you wrote absolutely everythi
Robert did you read the quote I sent yesterday from the horses mouth? I very
much doubt it would be profitable for anyone to take a different position than
LiveCode Ltd on whether a stackFile is considered a plugin and therefore
covered by the GPL. I have to say that I myself was unsure of this
Thanks Richard.. that one a good example of.. "leonine" clause as we say in
France...
as we say :: El diabolo hides in small details.
Coming back to Livecode OS I'm really surprised that nobody seem to have
considered stacks as being not only programs but multimedia interactive
media, and the re
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
> indeed.. I do have an android phone!!
>
> And I read the GNU license for good,
> and the FAQ's for good,
> and some discussions
>
> 1) my personal conclusion reading these is that the assumption you make
> about stack files falling under GPL is
indeed.. I do have an android phone!!
And I read the GNU license for good,
and the FAQ's for good,
and some discussions
1) my personal conclusion reading these is that the assumption you make
about stack files falling under GPL is.. questionable, but.. arguable,
particularly if there are element
Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the
difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief, Free
Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right" that software
be liberated. Open Source Software does special things for pragmatic
reasons; it
Robert Mann wrote:
> Behing the great idea of a Open SOurce, it is surpassing to find
> so much barriers being built around it.
As Peter explained, for most use cases it's not all that deep.
But for edge cases all licenses can be complex, open source and
proprietary alike.
The only reason so
J. Landman Gay wrote:
> If memory serves, the LC team has (had?) a service that would build
> for iOS for you as well as help with all the back-end Apple
> certification, etc. Is that still around?
I don't believe so. As I wrote in this thread two days ago:
> What I questionned is that we're
Hi Robert,
The situation is quite simple:
1) The Open Source edition of LiveCode is licensed under the GNU General
Public License, version 3. This says that if you distribute works
derived from the Open Source edition of LiveCode (which we interpret to
include stack files), then you must do
The price rise in the commercial license has led me to try understand the
Opens SOurce License, although I had always in my mind to keep with a
commercial license ideally.
And that leads to big surprises. I'll be doing a little bit of homework on
that.
*Question 1 :: is there somewhere a kind of
On 3/1/2016 2:09 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada
wrote:
Why not publish your Apps for iOS using a Publisher Partner?
Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner selected among our very own LiveCode
fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarte
> On 2 Mar 2016, at 7:38 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
> That "someone" would be violating the terms and conditions of their Indy (or
> Business) license.
>
> If they were *lucky*, they would promptly find that they didn't have their
> license any more.
>
> Needless to say, anyone trying such
This doesn’t capture my part in this conversation. Personally, I am unconcerned
about protecting my code/projects and I’m very happy to publish using the GPL
license. But . . . BIG BUT . . . Apple won’t accept GPL, and I cannot afford
the ever increasing price of the commercial license as a hobb
On 01/03/2016 20:18, RM wrote:
If by a "Publisher Partner" you mean getting someone who owns a licence
to the Commercial version
of Livecode to build you stacks from your standalones, that (while
possibly not being illegal) seems
sneaky and under-hand.
I suppose someone will try this trick soon
On 1.03.2016 22:09, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
Why not publish your Apps for iOS
using a Publisher Partner?
Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
selected among our very own
LiveCode fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarter
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
>
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected among our very own
> LiveCode fellow developers.
We discussed this during the original Kickstarter and I believe the discussio
Yes, but unnecessary with the current Community Version. You can “publish” to
your own (and other select) devices w/o jail-breaking them.
Roger
> On Mar 1, 2016, at 2:23 AM, RM wrote:
>
> This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not necessarily a
> bad thing.
>
> Richmon
> • What can we/or can't we do with the Open Source version
> • Where does the commercial version step in
>
> So far, the Q/A on live code site that give examples only deals with the
> CODE and not the content.
The GPL requires that if you distribute your work, you distribute with
it everything n
Hi that is surely one way of helping "hobbyist" :: suggesting they get help
from a pro.. and give 'em some work! !?
But that is not the point I made.
As a former publisher of BOOKS, the point I made is :
what are the rules??
What protection (rules) applies to WHAT?
What can we do/not do with th
This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not
necessarily a bad thing.
Richmond.
On 1.03.2016 03:32, Roger Guay wrote:
Monty,
I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with
anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC.
Hi all,
I have read most of this message thread too and for me personal this discussion
is not about licenses etc.
In my opinion this discussion fired up just because of MONEY (no news btw) and
emotions (Apple/Hypercard/LiveCode).
Enterprise users of LC will not have any problem to pay up to 9
Thanks for clarifying Mark
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 7:07 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> There are no gray areas here.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manag
Usual IANAL terms apply :)
On 2016-03-01 06:21, Monte Goulding wrote:
My reading of this is that any content embedded in a stackFile should
be licensed under the GPL. I could be wrong as I’m also not a lawyer!
I would have thought that the spirit of the license that it applies to
everything the
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:05:51 -0800 (PST), Alejandro Tejada wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have read most of this message thread,
> so please pardon me if someone has
> proposed this before:
>
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada
wrote:
> Why not publish your Apps for iOS
> using a Publisher Partner?
>
> Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
> selected among our very own
> LiveCode fellow developers.
>
I don't think that's allowed in the ELUA
Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol Ca.
Hi all,
I have read most of this message thread,
so please pardon me if someone has
proposed this before:
Why not publish your Apps for iOS
using a Publisher Partner?
Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner
selected among our very own
LiveCode fellow developers.
if not:
https://www.quora.com/I-have-an
Robert you may like to take the following snipped quote from Mark Waddingham
into consideration in your analysis of how GPL applies to stackFiles:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems wise to at least provide some guidance in this
case. Ultimately, it can only be guidance as we did not write the GPL
Thanks all for these precise links references (Richard & Matt in particular),
I was able to sort of clarify the source of what I felt a problem.
And will share that. [Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal
advice.]
[See :: conclusion at the end :: call for an education stack on Livec
My apologies to you and Monte, if I sounded too defensive.
I do hope that this idea of a non-profit/give-away app license will not be
summarily dismissed. It just might be a benefit to all of us.
Cheers,
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> I know you're a support
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 3:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism.
For the record so did I and neither did I ;-)
> I was just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would
> include. I guess I did miss your original sugges
I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism. I was
just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would
include. I guess I did miss your original suggestion. I also wonder how
a hobbyist license should be enforced, or if it should just be an honor
system.
Well, what I suggested a few posts back was a license for non-profits and
give-away apps. But, I completely understand if that turns out to be difficult
to police. I’m only trying to help here!
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:45 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
> On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay
On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream
for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone?
Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides they're a
hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little farther. What
restrictions
Maybe they could sell one-time exceptions. Like, give Livecode $100 and you
can compile one version of one app closed source. So many options.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> > On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
> >
> > Once more, I point out that this migh
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote:
>
> Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!!
> Does it hurt anyone?
I guess it could hurt everyone that depends on the platform if it undercut the
Indy license too much. One thing we know for sure is that wi
What estimate? I did say "might" as I really have no idea what y'all can afford
:-)
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:10 PM, [-hh] wrote:
>
> Monte, Roger's question is clear. Why don't you answer it?
> And show us the the data that's the base of your estimate?
Monty,
I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with
anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC. I’ll get
along with whatever LC brings to my future. But you know better than I, that
Apple is not going to be moved. So why not make lemona
My email wasn't displayed, perhaps because a suspected iPhone?
No, No - I didn't sent this from anybody's iPhone ;-)
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
>>> Monte G. wrote:
>>> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful
>>> of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> Roger G. wrote:
>> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and
>> IOS in you
Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you could
publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something to take up
with Apple.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:39 AM, Roger Guay wrote:
>
> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac
Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in
your estimate?
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful of
> users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Commu
I believe the monthly subscription was dropped at the time of the open source
release for exactly those reasons. Funnily enough LiveCode developers need to
pay the bills too so need to avoid enabling people to game the system. One of
the issues of course is that there really might only be a hand
[disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice]
I sympathize with your confusion. There is inherent confusion around the
differences between "sharing" and "free/open source." In the former case,
it's just something people do. In the latter case, it is a legal standard.
Livecode Commun
On 1.03.2016 00:16, Roger Guay wrote:
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this
is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.
Cheers,
Roger
That, now, makes sense. A sort of halfway house.
There was (amidst the plethora of purchasing plans that ha
I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this
is another potential revenue source for LiveCode.
Cheers,
Roger
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
>
> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
> tool/license that would
Robert, I appreciate your thorough thoughts on this. You covered a lot
of ground, and you seem to have your mind well made up on open source
license options so I won't try to convince you of anything here, just
providing some links and background info for others who may share
questions along t
hi folks, what is this fuss about?
First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source path on
all usage is not true. There was a command to protect a stack ("protect" of
course!) . And some interesting pieces of software were sold as protected
stacks.
And it is precisely that posi
Richmond:
I also find it hard to appreciate the seriousness of the problem. Seems like
much ado about very little.
Best,
Bill
> On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, RM wrote:
>
> Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming languages
> such as PASCAL and C++
> are as FREE as the ai
Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming
languages such as PASCAL and C++
are as FREE as the air. As long as a language remains Unfree it is
unlikely to be adopted widely.
While Runtime Revolution / Livecode have, until comparatively recently,
only had a closed source vers
82 matches
Mail list logo
