Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

> - Original Message - From: "Peter M. Brigham" > To: "How to use LiveCode" > Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 12:31 PM > Subject: Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary > > >> On Jul 27, 2014, at 2:21 PM, wrote: >> >>

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

OK, thanks Peter. I'll wait for the improvements. Larry - Original Message - From: "Peter M. Brigham" To: "How to use LiveCode" Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2014 12:31 PM Subject: Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary On Jul 27, 2014, at 2:21 PM,

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Whoops, pressed send too soon. > > How can I get this version to you/the list? > > Also, I think your array may need to have an extra level of key for the > entry type (command, property, etc) since there are multiple entries in the > dictionar

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, at 3:05 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 7/27/2014, 1:31 PM, Peter M. Brigham wrote: >> On the Mac these days the plugins folder is within the LiveCode app >> package (LiveCode xxx.app/Contents/Tools/Plugins/). On Windows the >> plugins folder should be visible with no hassle. > >

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On 7/27/2014, 1:31 PM, Peter M. Brigham wrote: On the Mac these days the plugins folder is within the LiveCode app package (LiveCode xxx.app/Contents/Tools/Plugins/). On Windows the plugins folder should be visible with no hassle. That folder is meant only for the plugins that ship with LiveCod

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, at 2:21 PM, wrote: > Hello Peter, > I went to your link below. > I see what appears to be a LiveCode stack. > Do I have to compile that before I put in the plugins folder? > Sorry, I'm a VERY newbie. No, just drop it into your plugins folder and restart LC. On the Mac these days

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > Whoops, pressed send too soon. > > How can I get this version to you/the list? > > Also, I think your array may need to have an extra level of key for the > entry type (command, property, etc) since there are multiple entries in the > dictionar

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Hello Peter, I went to your link below. I see what appears to be a LiveCode stack. Do I have to compile that before I put in the plugins folder? Sorry, I'm a VERY newbie. Thanks, Larry > OK, here's a quick-and-dirty plugin called LCdictPlugin. Pop it into your plugins folder and restart LC. I

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Whoops, pressed send too soon. How can I get this version to you/the list? Also, I think your array may need to have an extra level of key for the entry type (command, property, etc) since there are multiple entries in the dictionary for the same term in some cases (e.g hilite is a command and a

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Thanks for this Peter, installed and working fine. I added a couple of things to it - saving the htmltext of the note into the array so simple formatting is maintained - An index of all the user notes in alpha order, accessible by shift clicking the "user note" pseudo button. Pete lcSQL Softwar

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, I wrote: > OK, here's a quick-and-dirty plugin called LCdictPlugin. Pop it into your > plugins folder and restart LC. I realized that with my original plugin it's impossible to tell if you have a user note for a given dictionary entry without checking each entry every time wit

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, I wrote: > OK, here's a quick-and-dirty plugin called LCdictPlugin. Pop it into your > plugins folder and restart LC. I realized that with my original plugin it's impossible to tell if you have a user note for a given dictionary entry without checking each entry every time wit

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On 27/07/14 18:00, Peter M. Brigham wrote: My stacks are not password protected, I just have an ask password barrier to accessing the data. I may be misremembering, so that may not have been the problem. I just recall being blocked at the outset and deciding not to bother running anything beyo

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

My stacks are not password protected, I just have an ask password barrier to accessing the data. I may be misremembering, so that may not have been the problem. I just recall being blocked at the outset and deciding not to bother running anything beyond 5.5.1. At some point I'll try it again. -

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On 27/07/14 17:38, Peter M. Brigham wrote: On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Peter M. Brigham wrote: (Sorry, like Richmond, I am not using LC 6.x for most of what I do, since that would involve updating 32,000 lines of script.) I must have missed something, as I've been hap

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Peter M. Brigham wrote: > > > (Sorry, like Richmond, I am not using LC 6.x for most of what I > > do, since that would involve updating 32,000 lines of script.) > > I must have missed something, as I've been happily working away in v6 without

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On 27/07/14 17:27, Richard Gaskin wrote: Peter M. Brigham wrote: > (Sorry, like Richmond, I am not using LC 6.x for most of what I > do, since that would involve updating 32,000 lines of script.) I must have missed something, as I've been happily working away in v6 without ever noticing that m

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Peter M. Brigham wrote: > (Sorry, like Richmond, I am not using LC 6.x for most of what I > do, since that would involve updating 32,000 lines of script.) I must have missed something, as I've been happily working away in v6 without ever noticing that my old code wasn't supposed to work. Can

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 27, 2014, I wrote: > OK, here's a quick-and-dirty plugin called LCdictPlugin. Pop it into your > plugins folder and restart LC. Forgot to say, make sure the plugin is set to open at LC startup. -- Peter Peter M. Brigham pmb...@gmail.com http://home.comcast.net/~pmbrig ___

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On 27/07/14 17:01, Peter M. Brigham (Sorry, like Richmond, I am not using LC 6.x for most of what I do, since that would involve updating 32,000 lines of script.) That is slightly misleading: My commercial ventures (such as they are: gross income for 2014 = 20 Euros) are all made with LC

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

On Jul 14, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Charles E Buchwald wrote: > I know this is just one more complaint about how broken RevOnline is... But > it would be _really_ nice if it worked again. > > I just spent 45 minutes figuring out that when you use the revZip external, > you sometimes have to enclose y

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Thanks for the update, Richard. On 14 Jul 2014, at 11:44 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Charles E Buchwald wrote: > > > I know this is just one more complaint about how broken RevOnline > > is... But it would be _really_ nice if it worked again. > > There's a project in the IDE Contributors secti

Re: RevOnline & User Comments in the Dictionary

Charles E Buchwald wrote: > I know this is just one more complaint about how broken RevOnline > is... But it would be _really_ nice if it worked again. There's a project in the IDE Contributors section of the forum for improving RevOnline:

Re: revOnline is funky

Richard: Ahhh, I see. Got it! Great collection. Bill William Prothero http://es.earthednet.org On Mar 4, 2014, at 1:39 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > prothero wrote: > >> I was trying to download Richard Gaskin's prop inspector, but can't find it >> on the web site. > > 4W Props is in RevNet,

Re: revOnline is funky

prothero wrote: I was trying to download Richard Gaskin's prop inspector, but can't find it on the web site. 4W Props is in RevNet, which predates RevOnline by a couple years (and has unfortunately proven more reliable). RevNet is accessible within the LC IDE through its bundled plugin - s

Re: revOnline is funky

Bernd: It's a pity. I was trying to download Richard Gaskin's prop inspector, but can't find it on the web site. Anyway, I've gotta get back to some productive work. Best, bill William Prothero http://es.earthednet.org On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:40 PM, BNig wrote: > Hi William, > > see Bug 11387

Re: revOnline is funky

Hi William, see Bug 11387 in Quality Control Center http://quality.runrev.com/show_bug.cgi?id=11387 It seems to be a rather nasty problem since it is not always reproducible. Although I experience what you describe every time. Kind regards Bernd -- View this message in context: http://runti

Re: revOnline is funky

In revOnline window, from LC 6.6.0 dp-1, it is hanging the entire app. I get the following error message when i do an Apple-period command: - The following server error was encountered: ---

Re: revOnline

Why must you always chase the cat? Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, UX/UI Design On 10/2/13 6:48 PM, "Mark Wieder" wrote: >Jacque- > >Wednesday, October 2, 2013, 1:10:25 PM, you wrote: > >> You came out of your corner, didn't you. > >Nuthin' but the groundhog in me >(Bo

Re: revOnline

Jacque- Wednesday, October 2, 2013, 1:10:25 PM, you wrote: > You came out of your corner, didn't you. Nuthin' but the groundhog in me (Bow-wow-wow yippee-yo yippee-yay) -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livec

Re: revOnline

On 10/2/13 2:59 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: Kay- Tuesday, October 1, 2013, 6:38:08 PM, you wrote: No, the day was definitely broken but after that post it's much better now. That must be why they call it daybreak. You came out of your corner, didn't you. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay |

Re: revOnline

Kay- Tuesday, October 1, 2013, 6:38:08 PM, you wrote: > No, the day was definitely broken but after that post it's much better now. That must be why they call it daybreak. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-li

Re: revOnline

Jacque- Wednesday, October 2, 2013, 12:04:19 PM, you wrote: > I wish I could get it to access next year reliably. There's some > features I need. That's easy. Just wait until a day after next year. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-li

Re: revOnline

On 10/2/13 11:49 AM, Roger Eller wrote: On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: I know RunRev have some amazingly talented people available to them but fixing the day beats it all! RunRev is *obviously* harnessing the power of time travel from a stack by J. Landman Gay. At le

Re: revOnline

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > I know RunRev have some amazingly talented people available to them but > fixing the day beats it all! > RunRev is *obviously* harnessing the power of time travel from a stack by J. Landman Gay. At least that's what I heard next week. :)

Re: revOnline

I know RunRev have some amazingly talented people available to them but fixing the day beats it all! RevOnline seems to be OK again with 5.5.4. Pete lcSQL Software On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > > Maybe there was a problem earlier in the day that g

Re: revOnline

No, the day was definitely broken but after that post it's much better now. Thanks ;-) On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Mark Wieder wrote: > > Maybe there was a problem earlier in the day that got fixed? > > Er... that should read maybe the *problem* got fixed, not the day... > > -- > -Mark Wie

Re: revOnline

> Maybe there was a problem earlier in the day that got fixed? Er... that should read maybe the *problem* got fixed, not the day... -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this

Re: revOnline

Pete- Tuesday, October 1, 2013, 4:55:06 PM, you wrote: > Thanks, yes they work OK in 6.1.1. I guess I'll have to stop using 5.5.4 > which is where I came across the problem. Working for me here with 5.5.4. Maybe there was a problem earlier in the day that got fixed? -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@a

Re: revOnline

Thanks, yes they work OK in 6.1.1. I guess I'll have to stop using 5.5.4 which is where I came across the problem. Pete lcSQL Software On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Warren Samples wrote: > On 10/01/2013 05:38 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: > >> revOnline appears to be compl

Re: revOnline

On 10/01/2013 05:38 PM, Peter Haworth wrote: revOnline appears to be completely dead - searching doesn't work and clicking a keyword does nothing either. Anyone having the same experience? Pete All these functions seem to be working normally here in LC 6.1.1 and 6.5dp1. Warren _

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Monte Goulding wrote: >> It's nice when you guys get involved. I totally agree with the logic behind >>what you said by the way. Unfortunately this stuff isn't as logical as we >>often assume it is ;-) I also think the law in this area is bonkers and agree with the more common sense view of

Re: revOnline and Open Source

It's nice when you guys get involved. I totally agree with the logic behind what you said by the way. Unfortunately this stuff isn't as logical as we often assume it is ;-) -- M E R Goulding Software development services mergExt - There's an external for that! On 02/08/2013, at 5:16 PM, Heathe

Re: revOnline and Open Source

:) Yes Monte, I do. I expect them to use it - according to the clearly defined terms of the accompanying license. LiveCode's IDE has always been open and available for people to use, copy and learn from. I guess I shouldn't post late in the evening without due thought and consideration. I thin

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Heather, I'm a late comer to this discussion so I might have missed a crucial piece. However, I can conceive of situation in which I might freely share something I've written, e. g. a lecture, but include a copyright notice to forestall someone else using my work verbatim (or nearly so) and pas

Re: revOnline and Open Source

...or "Wrong" by David Freedman. Slightly different focus - it's about why experts are very frequently wrong. Pete lcSQL Software On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jacques Hausser wrote: > Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ? > > Jacques > >

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Read "Simplexity" by Jeoffrey Kluger Pete lcSQL Software On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jacques Hausser wrote: > Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ? > > Jacques > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-live

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ? Jacques ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/u

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Heather Laine wrote: > Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth > would you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture, > hanging it on the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture, > don't look at it! Thank

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 11:40 PM, Heather Laine wrote: Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth would you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture, hanging it on the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture, don't look at it! I've nothing against

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Heather Laine wrote: > Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on > earth would you upload it to revOnline? There may be many reasons: - The stack may be a tutorial, and while the code techniques it describes may be shareable there may be libraries or other code driving

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 02/08/2013, at 12:25 AM, "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: > If they don't contain *any* code, I agree. If I designed such a file > format, it would only > have descriptions of what the user did, and would be pure ascii. > > I can't tell; there are certainly non-ascii characters in there, and I > just d

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 02/08/2013, at 6:40 AM, Heather Laine wrote: > I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's > theirs. But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect > people to do with it? You do realise that all of RunRev's IP is openly uploaded to a share

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth would you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture, hanging it on the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture, don't look at it! I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to.

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 02/08/2013, at 2:58 AM, Peter Haworth wrote: > The whole point of revOnline is to freely and openly share code with no > strings attached. If that's not what you want to do, then you should find > a location that is more appropriate to your objectives. Hmm... Mark Wieder said he puts demos

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 11:45 PM, Mark Wilcox wrote: > 1) CC0 - the creative commons public domain equivalent with fallbacks (you > can't give up your rights to your work in the same ways everywhere in the > world) is better for software than a simple public domain declaration. Yes, unlike other CC

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on it. Well, I started the thread, and the reaction was both amazing, and, I believe, healthy; surely the mor

Re: revOnline and Open Source

it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on it. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond wrote: > On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: > >> This is just awful and freudian at the same time.

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote: This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take when I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was "revOnline and Open Sores" LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore. Richmond. __

Re: revOnline and Open Source

I totally agree with you :: things should be simple. Simple for us, simple for th experimented commercial developer helping us out, simple for Kevin, simple for the 12 yrs old newcomer, simple and clear for everybody := revOnline =equals= freely shared no strings attached. Full point. I believe

Re: revOnline and Open Source

I'm in favor of a statement making it clear what the conditions for uploading stacks to revOnline are. I'm not in favor of allowing those terms to be overriden by people setting their own licensing terms on a stack by stack basis. The whole point of revOnline is to freely and openly share code wi

Re: revOnline and Open Source

lly public domain (in the UK) > - the rules differ slightly in different countries but have been adjusted > to be broadly the same in most of the developed world at least. > > > > ____ > From: Richmond > To: How to use LiveCode > Sent:

Re: revOnline and Open Source

domain (in the UK) - the rules differ slightly in different countries but have been adjusted to be broadly the same in most of the developed world at least. From: Richmond To: How to use LiveCode Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 16:30 Subject: Re: revOnline and O

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Dr. Hawkins wrote: > If they don't contain *any* code, I agree.  If I designed such a file > format, it would only > have descriptions of what the user did, and would be pure ascii. > I can't tell; there are certainly non-ascii characters in there, and I > just don't know what > they are.  I *a

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 03:56 PM, Kevin Miller wrote: I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state that everything on revOnline is a

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 12:52 PM, Robert Mann wrote: So to sum it up : 1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code. 2. Authors SHOULD specify the ter

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Mark Wilcox wrote: > > 3) Stackfiles are (almost certainly) not derivative works. The content of > stacks is > generated by LiveCode but they do not contain bits of the engine code. If they don't contain *any* code, I agree. If I designed such a file format, it

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Kevin Miller wrote: > I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas > to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do > agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state > that everything on

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Robert Mann wrote: > So to sum it up : That pretty much sums it up. > 5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified. I don't see a real difference in this context. > Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and > mechanism I like

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > I would think that it is clear to users that sharing code (rather than > stacks) in the code section of RevOnline, implies that people can use it to > learn from. Copying and using it would violate copyright, I think the downloader using

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Dr. Hawkins wrote: >> As the author of the seminal Economic paper on the subject, I chose >> "viral" and "public" quite deliberately. > That's certainly your right, or anyone's right, regardless of any academic > credentials. It's also th

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Kevin Miller wrote: > I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas > to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do > agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state > that everything on revOnline is automatically publi

Re: revOnline and Open Source

This thread is too long and full of misunderstandings (even from the expert lawyer on the technical side) to reply to every post separately.  Here's my take (IANAL but I did work for a open source software foundation and write the licensing FAQs etc): 1) Anything published without an explicit c

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Kevin Miller wrote: I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state that everything on revOnline is automatically public doma

Re: revOnline and Open Source

I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state that everything on revOnline is automatically public domain, *unless* the autho

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Hi Robert, I would think that it is clear to users that sharing code (rather than stacks) in the code section of RevOnline, implies that people can use it to learn from. Copying and using it would violate copyright, but studying the code and reverse-engineering it would be a form of "fair use

Re: revOnline and Open Source

So to sum it up : 1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code. 2. Authors SHOULD specify the terms and license they agree upon 3. Clearly, ta

Re: revOnline and Open Source

As it should ;-) -- M E R Goulding Software development services mergExt - There's an external for that! On 01/08/2013, at 1:42 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Thanks for prompting my re-read (so much falls out of one's head after a few > days in Hawaii ). ___

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Monte Goulding wrote: On 01/08/2013, at 12:31 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: GPL3 distinguishes "dynamic linking" as not affected, while "static linking" explicitly inherits GPL freedoms. I thought it was LGPL that made that distinction. On further review, I believe you're right. I got hung

Re: revOnline and Open Source

If you look at the code that writes the LiveCode file to disk you will see that it's just saving object properties. It's a binary file format which is why some of it will look like gobbledygook. Cheers -- M E R Goulding Software development services mergExt - There's an external for that! On

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Dr. Hawkins wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Dr. Hawkins wrote: FWIW, the inventor of the GPL prefers "inherit" rather than "infect", since the GPL is a choice authors can make and "infect" has negative connotations that make that choice sound like an accident.

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > On 01/08/2013, at 11:31 AM, "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: > >> If, OTOH, you >> distributed a .livecode file, I think you're probably back to a >> derivative work. > > Why? Are all images edited with GIMP derivative works? Are all MySQL > databases

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Mark Wieder wrote: > (Sticking my non-lawyer nose into this) if something isn't explicitly > GPL then it's not GPL, right? correct. If you don't license or transfer it, it's still completely copyrignted & protected. However, the act of putting it on there shoul

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 11:31 AM, "Dr. Hawkins" wrote: > If, OTOH, you > distributed a .livecode file, I think you're probably back to a > derivative work. Why? Are all images edited with GIMP derivative works? Are all MySQL databases derivative works? What about text files written with GPL software?

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Thomas McGrath III wrote: > Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code with > other users. >In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform? Doesn't the idea of sharing >code >openly in a public space enough to declare it as public? Or

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Dr. Hawkins wrote: > FWIW, the inventor of the GPL prefers "inherit" rather than "infect", since > the GPL is a choice authors can make and "infect" has negative connotations > that make that choice sound like an accident. An inheritance a

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote: > Yes, the license of the community version does infect executables built with > it, >but not automatically. The author still has to include the license with the >software >and if s/he doesn't do that, copright applies automatically and th

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 12:31 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > GPL3 distinguishes "dynamic linking" as not affected, while "static linking" > explicitly inherits GPL freedoms. I thought it was LGPL that made that distinction. Cheers -- Monte Goulding M E R Goulding - software development services merg

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 6:34 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license for my > work. There are specific implications for GPL, MIT, public domain, etc., and > I like each for different projects. I've asked many times for the lists and forums

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license for > my work. There are specific implications for GPL, MIT, public domain, > etc., and I like each for different projects. > > I fear it would greatly limit the range o

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Peter Haworth wrote: However, seems like it would be a good idea for RunRev to publish the terms under which revOnline submissions are accepted so we don't all have to include our own t&cs. Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license for my work. There are specific

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under which > it's shared. Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention was GPL, > CC, MIT, public domain, or something else. Have to admit I've always thought of revOn

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Mark Wieder wrote: Richard- Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:44:18 PM, you wrote: Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under which it's shared. Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention was GPL, CC, MIT, public domain, or something else. (Sticking my non-lawye

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Richard- Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:44:18 PM, you wrote: > Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under > which it's shared. Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention > was GPL, CC, MIT, public domain, or something else. (Sticking my non-lawyer nose into this)

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Thomas McGrath III wrote: > Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code > with other users. In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform? > Doesn't the idea of sharing code openly in a public space enough to > declare it as public? Or is that presuming too much? Shar

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code with other users. In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform? Doesn't the idea of sharing code openly in a public space enough to declare it as public? Or is that presuming too much? Tom -- Tom McGrath III http://lazyri

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Dr. Hawkins wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Robert Mann wrote: On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack, then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge. That just isn't the law. Not in the US, and AFAIK, not any country subscribing to the Bern

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Hi, Yes, the license of the community version does infect executables built with it, but not automatically. The author still has to include the license with the software and if s/he doesn't do that, copright applies automatically and the author would be violating LiveCode's open source license.

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 31/07/13 16:49, Robert Mann wrote: Oups! i'm surprised. I thought the opposite would be true :: if nothing specified, it's deemed "public knowledge"? As far as patents are concerned, once a mechanism is documented on line, it is deemed to be public knowledge and thus no more patentable (one c

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Robert Mann wrote: > On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack, > then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge. That just isn't the law. Not in the US, and AFAIK, not any country subscribing to the Berne convention. *HOWE

  1   2   >