Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Interestingly - one of the side effects of the file based export of large stacks for Git repos - is that the monolythic stack gets digested into chunks - this can make it much easier to re-engineer as a lean stack that reads and writes to text files. Also GIT deals very very well with hundreds or

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Hi, The biggest project I have ever seen consisted of one 4 GB stack. Due to its size, it was impossible to make a standalone of it :-) I guess such projects aren't optimally organised for GIT. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: ht

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Surely LiveCode itself is made up of lots of files, that can work with GIT perfectly well? Do stacks have to have that ability right away? Won't most open source big LiveCode applications be made of lots of stacks and external files, giving you a certain amount of modularity, even if individual

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Kevin - building automatic default licensing and easy code submission into the open source version would go a long long way to making the open source community effort work. Flickr did this with their built in CC licensing options, I feel it would be important for the OS version of LC to be launched

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 06/02/2013, at 3:59 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kevin Miller wrote: >> There will be a commercial code escrow option too, but that will be aimed >> at larger companies and be specific to their individual use of the >> platform. > > I'm small, though. > > Far lar

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Kevin Miller wrote: > There will be a commercial code escrow option too, but that will be aimed > at larger companies and be specific to their individual use of the > platform. I'm small, though. Far larger than hobbyist; will probably become a company with a half

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Kevin- Monday, February 4, 2013, 9:53:46 AM, you wrote: > There will be a commercial code escrow option too, but that will be aimed > at larger companies and be specific to their individual use of the > platform. Yay! That should plug that loophole. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net __

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

There will be a commercial code escrow option too, but that will be aimed at larger companies and be specific to their individual use of the platform. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Unleash Your Killer App On 04/02/2013 17:45, "Mark Wie

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

The stack protection code will not be in the GPL version and will not be released. Stacks without protection will be interchangeable between GPL and commercial, but the GPL version won't even be able to open stacks with password protection. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ h

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Dr. Hawkins writes: > The OSS branch can never get orphaned. The commercial branch can, however ... > > Now I'm musing about ways to deal with that; perhaps an exception that > allows the proprietary standalone to be built if certain events occur? > a cod escrow? Thank you. I've been waiting

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Peter Alcibiades wrote: > It also has the potential to remove the Hypercard danger - that of being > stuck in an orphaned product. If its open sourced that can never happen. The OSS branch can never get orphaned. The commercial branch can, however . . . Now I'm

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Yes - this is a strange one! Warning - those of you that dislike lawyers skip this email :) "Apple won't accept any GPL apps" - the obvious thought is that it's those crafty closed box Apple people again... where in fact it seems that Apple are not enforcing anything - it's the open source people

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 03/02/2013, at 8:04 AM, "Peter M. Brigham" wrote: > I assume the "password protected" refers to the kind of password protection > that hides scripts and encrypts the file on the hard drive. Does this also > exclude the kind of roll-your-own password protection involved in scripting > an "a

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On Feb 2, 2013, at 3:43 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > On 2/2/13 2:07 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: > >> Then again, it might be possible to ship a non-GPL stack that was >> password protected that would be run by the GPL or non-GPL engine, >> although it might be impossible to handle the decryption in a w

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 2/2/13 2:07 PM, Dr. Hawkins wrote: Then again, it might be possible to ship a non-GPL stack that was password protected that would be run by the GPL or non-GPL engine, although it might be impossible to handle the decryption in a way that doesn't make available a key that gives effective acce

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

> So many thoughtful responses . . . I'll try to put all my thoughts in > one spot (and will inevitably fail . . .) Thanks. I'm hesitant to get into this discussion, having only a layman's view, so it's good to get some professional insight. -- -Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

So many thoughtful responses . . . I'll try to put all my thoughts in one spot (and will inevitably fail . . .) On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: > If you want to share the code with the community, and do so in a way that > requires other derivative works to be similarly shared

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Thanks for the kind answer, Richard. Le 2 févr. 2013 à 02:11, Richard Gaskin a écrit : > François Chaplais wrote: > > OK, open source is the cure for cancer... > > So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent > > math library for Livecode > > Who pays the rent? > > Al

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 02/02/2013 02:16 AM, François Chaplais wrote: OK, open source is the cure for cancer... So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent math library for Livecode Who pays the rent? You will have to release it as commercial-only if you want any rent at all in the f

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

François Chaplais wrote: > OK, open source is the cure for cancer... > So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent > math library for Livecode > Who pays the rent? Alternative answer: You may not need to write the library at all, but instead find that someone else

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Glen Bojsza wrote: Nothing in the GPL would prevent anyone from *writing* such a feature, but since the GPL requires that all source code under it be available that would prevent them from ever *using* it. ;) So given Kevin has said the stack protection code will be under GPL will you stop

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

It would need to be an external to do that as far as I can tell. It would be nice to be able to create a derivative engine and maintain it as a separate fork that could still be used by commercial LC license holders but I think to do that you would need to come to license terms per app with runr

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

François Chaplais wrote: So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent math library for Livecode Who pays the rent? You do, by creating value for your customers. You can sell the closed source library if you get a commercial license for LiveCode. Or more than like

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

François Chaplais wrote: OK, open source is the cure for cancer... So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent math library for Livecode Who pays the rent? Whomever you can get to pay it. If you want to keep the source proprietary, you can use a proprietary lice

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

He was saying that the hypothetical protection code that a contributor had written would be under GPL. The protection code that is in current LiveCode would only be in the commercial version, and isn't covered by GPL. On Feb 1, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Glen Bojsza wrote: >> >So given Kevin has said

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

> > Nothing in the GPL would prevent anyone from *writing* such a feature, but > since the GPL requires that all source code under it be available that would > prevent them from ever *using* it. ;) > So given Kevin has said the stack protection code will be under GPL will you > stop using it?

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

If you need the functions enough then its worthwhile you doing it but if not then you won't be able to justify the time. Same scenario for any other bit of code you write I guess. -- M E R Goulding Software development services mergExt - There's an external for that! On 02/02/2013, at 11:16 AM

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Glen Bojsza wrote: What if someone contributes to the GPL version that gives it the ability to have and create password protected stacks (not supporting the commercial implementation but a whole new variant)? Obviously, there will be contributors that will want to add features to the GPL version

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

OK, open source is the cure for cancer... So I spend months, which become years implementing, say, a decent math library for Livecode Who pays the rent? ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscrib

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Yes, we considered that. That stack protection code would be under GPL. So it would have to be open. And therefore anyone could reverse engineer it. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/ LiveCode: Unleash Your Killer App On 01/02/2013 23:56, "Glen Bojsz

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

You're not allowed to release features that are not open source, so I doubt that you could release an add-on that prevents other features from fulfilling their open source-ness. On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Glen Bojsza wrote: > >What if someone contributes to the GPL version that gives it the

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

What if someone contributes to the GPL version that gives it the ability to have and create password protected stacks (not supporting the commercial implementation but a whole new variant)? Obviously, there will be contributors that will want to add features to the GPL version that has similar fea

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

In the commercial version you will be able to publish for iOS App Store distribution, and you'll also be able to password protect your stacks. On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: > Is the first just like it is presently, but the second is? > > Or the LiveCode application ha

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 02/02/2013, at 10:22 AM, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: > Hi, > > What I don't quite understand is the physical difference between a > commercially-licensed and an open source-licensed RunRev application. > > Is the first just like it is presently, but the second is? > > Or the LiveCode appli

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Hi, What I don't quite understand is the physical difference between a commercially-licensed and an open source-licensed RunRev application. Is the first just like it is presently, but the second is? Or the LiveCode application has two versions...? Peter UCLA On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:12 PM, P

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Thanks Monte. I guess I was thinking of new features rather than bug fixes, e.g some sort of new control. But I guess the principal is the same. As you say, it will be interesting to see how all this unfolds. Pete lcSQL Software On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Monte Go

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

I believe the intention is to have a rewards for contributors to the engine. Points that go towards commercial licenses. That's just a bonus though. I think what's most likely to happen is something like this: RunRev will do most feature development A developer hits a bug when working on an app

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 2/1/13 2:16 PM, Richmond wrote: where you wrote: "so anyone developing Apple products will need to purchase the commercial license" you should have written: "so anyone developing Apple products to be sold through either the App Store or the Mac App Store will need to purchase the commercial

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

OK, makes some kind of sense. Pete lcSQL Software On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Mark Schonewille < m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com> wrote: > Hi Pete, > > Yeah, you're missing the point, kind of. Everyone who contributes can also > use all contributions by everyone else

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

__ From: Peter Haworth To: How to use LiveCode Sent: Friday, February 1, 2013 9:03 PM Subject: Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode Thanks Mark. As mentioned, I know nothing of C++ so this isn't going to affect me.  But it doesn't seem unrea

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 02/01/2013 10:11 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote: Hi Pete, Yeah, you're missing the point, kind of. Everyone who contributes can also use all contributions by everyone else and when you contribute, you make it more attractive to others to cntribute too. That's the reward of open-source software

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 02/01/2013 10:05 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: On 2/1/13 12:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: As being a dev tool, there will be a certain percentage who will want to use it for proprietary deployment. And then there's the part how Apple won't accept any GPL apps in either the App Store or the Mac

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Hi Pete, Yeah, you're missing the point, kind of. Everyone who contributes can also use all contributions by everyone else and when you contribute, you make it more attractive to others to cntribute too. That's the reward of open-source software and there is no reason for any additional compens

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

On 2/1/13 12:53 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: As being a dev tool, there will be a certain percentage who will want to use it for proprietary deployment. And then there's the part how Apple won't accept any GPL apps in either the App Store or the Mac App Store, so anyone developing Apple products

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Thanks Mark. As mentioned, I know nothing of C++ so this isn't going to affect me. But it doesn't seem unreasonable that someone who is willing to contribute code into a free product might feel like they should be compensated should that code be incorporated into a product that costs money. Or p

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I have a licensing question Fast forward a few months, the code base is open source and the free version of LC is available. Someone adds a feature to to the open source (not me, I have no C++ knowledge). People using the free version obviously

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Hi Peter, It is open source and therefore the author doesn't need to be compensated and yes RunRev has access to that code. If RunRev decides to use the new code, they have to provide the new engine as open source, which you might consider a form of compensation for everyone who has contribut

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Dr. Hawkins wrote: > But I just can't see where the revenue stream that keeps livecode > around will be. The other examples you noted weren't dual-licensed. I think a good example here would be MySQL. Before going dual-license, MySQL was just another foundering proprietary RDBMS, not much b

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I have a licensing question Fast forward a few months, the code base is open source and the free version of LC is available. Someone adds a feature to to the open source (not me, I have no C++ knowledge). People using the free version obviously ha

Re: Trying to make economic sense of open sourcing livecode

Hi, It is quite simple. Many consultants and companies will find it profitable to contribute to the LiveCode engine. RunRev can use these contributions and include them in the commercial version of LiveCode. This way, the commercially available engine will develop more quickly, which makes it