Hi Richard, Don't forget that buying a LiveCode license, which is necessay to compile any open-source LC stack, might be much more expensive than paying for compiled open-source software.
Im not entirely sure how you define 'free', but your statement regarding free software seems flawed, since open-source software is not about free as in free beer but as in free speech. (I might have misunderstood your statement). -- Kind regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Http://economy-x-talk.com Share the clipboard of your computer over a local network with Clipboard Link http://clipboardlink.economy-x-talk.com Op 16 apr. 2011 om 17:36 heeft Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com> het volgende geschreven: > > True, and indeed there are some who make getting and using their GPL source > unnecessarily cumbersome, such as sharing the source with no make file. > > But such a gambit is too easily transparent and risks alienating the very > people who are providing your components, the FOSS community. Moreover, > anyone can make a tool to obviate such a trick to make it easy to share the > software. > > And of course with LiveCode, turning source into an executable requires only > one click, so the number of people who might be willing to milk that cow is > much larger than those who think it's difficult to run a make file. > > The point of GPL isn't to trick people into giving you free components for > your app, but to participate in an open sharing of software. > > There's a reason most commercial works using GPL also use a dual license for > their commercial version, rather than expecting people to pay for something > that anyone can download, modify, and redistribute for free. > > The bottom line is that if you want to participate in free software, make > free software. > > If instead you just want to benefit from free software without giving > anything back to the community, read the license agreement very carefully and > it may be good to consider consulting an attorney who specializes in IP to > make sure the implications are well understood. > > LGPL is a bit more flexible in allowing a free component to be used in a > non-free application, but straight GPL may not be so clear, whether "linked" > or not, if you distribute the GPL'd component as part of your app, as you > noted in the article at your site. > > I'm not an attorney, so local state law prohibits me from making any specific > recommendations regarding licensing or other legal matters. > > But I am a contributor to a few open source projects, so I feel fairly > confident that if a component developer chooses GPL instead of LGPL he did so > for a reason, and under the rights acknowledged by international law we > should honor their decision. > > When in doubt, the best way to understand the intentions of the creator of a > work may be to simply ask him directly. If he's a free-software zealot he'll > probably make that clear, and if he's willing to make a proprietary-use > license available for reasonable terms he'll probably make that clear too. I > find few developers turn down the opportunity to make unexpected money. :) > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World > LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com > Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com > LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv > > _______________________________________________ > 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/use-livecode _______________________________________________ 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/use-livecode
