I get what you are saying James, I’m just suggesting that there could be a lower cost version of create for ‘non-developer’ seats. That version doesn’t have access to the IDE and it’s only purpose run stacks or ‘apps’ that are produced by the full version of create. You would still need the same number of seats but at a more reasonable cost. Otherwise, I’m kinda struggling to see why you might choose LiveCode over other less constrained tools in an in-house commercial setting.
Regards, Terry From: use-livecode <use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com> on behalf of James Hale via use-livecode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Date: Friday, 26 July 2024 at 4:55 PM To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Cc: James Hale <ja...@thehales.id.au> Subject: Re: I seem to have missed something Terry asked: "What about a lower cost ‘player’ application that can run internal stacks/apps but not create or modify them?” You misunderstand me Terry, I think it is perfectly clear to count the use of a stack as a seat given it must use the LC IDE (either desktop or Web.) My confusion is in regard to compiled/standalone apps. The discussion so far seems to count them in the "needing a seat" group if they are say distributed in a company etc. So, to clarify, does a “seat” mean the use of the IDE is required? Which is pretty much the current situation. OR does a “seat” mean anyone using the app created by LC? James _______________________________________________ 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
