On 02/27/2013 05:58 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Richmond wrote:
Is it alright to use closed source and/or commercial software to produce
components used in Open Source software, for instance:
1. I produce something using the Livecode Open Source variant, but use
Adobe Photoshop to produce all the graphics.
Graphics aren't bound to the executable code, so there's no conflict
with the GPL.
That said, GIMP is a wonderfully capable tool, and with it's new
single-window UI is easy to work with and more than adequate for most
needs.
GIMP rocks; using it right now. I recently downloaded Adobe Photoshop
CS2 for Windows (as Adobe very kindly gave it away) and ran it with WINE
1.5.24 in Linux, thinking there would be some advantage - yet to see it.
The Photoshop example was a choice of commercial software that sprang to
mind; and I really didn't mean just graphics; I meant
audio files, graphics, fonts, and anything else associated with a
Livecode standalone for that matter.
A spreadsheet authored in a close source Office program?
A database file?
2. I include a substack in my Livecode OS-authored standalone that was
made using the commercial variant.
The GPL-governed Community Edition enforces its GPL requirements by
not being able to run stacks made with the Commercial Edition.
BUT . . . Presumably . . . one could copy-paste scripts out of a stack
authored with the commercial edition into a homologue
of that stack set up using the GPL version?
This wouldn't be far different from converting a Hypercard stack.
I wlll return to my former role of "court jester cum gadfly" (as if I
ever left it) until answers to some of these questions have been
hammered out.
AND . . . what about Metacard? The IDE is now Open Source, but, at least
at present, it requires the Livecode commercial engine to run:
does that mean that stacks authored with it, as it stands at present,
are closed source, semi-open or open (or, perhaps, Worcester Sauce) ?
And; How on earth will a stack authored in, say, RR/LC 2 be marked so
that Livecode GPL refuses to open it? Presumably in much the
same sort of way the last 3 stack formats are differentiated - something
that can be easily circumvented as J. Landman Gay demonstrated
recently on my prodding.
Presumably scripts written by some end-user working with the commercial
version don't mysteriously become covered by the closed
licence of the Livecode commercial engine once they are rolled into a
stack . . .
. . . I tend to work my scripts out (or at least the bare mechanics of
some of those 'orrible CASE statements) on bits of scrap paper;
and as such they are my property as much as they can be said to belong
to anyone, I don't quite see how I lose control of the things
once they are pasted into the script-editor of some object.
Richmond.
_______________________________________________
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
