I don't agree, Peter. At least, not at this stage. If one makes a
server-based app using PHP, one may keep the essential parts locked
away, unreachable for prying eyes. While obfuscated JavaScript may be
extremely difficult to unravel, one can still get a hold of the complete
source code. A commercial license doesn't change this. Therefore, I see
no incentive (yet) to buy a commercial license.
Additionally, one doesn't have to make the source code available
immediately. If I put a web app on a server, it is still my app. I'm not
releasing it. I'm just putting it on display. According to the GPL,
source code needs to be released together with the compiled version. If
I don't release the obfuscated version of a stack, i.e. I don't give it
away and don't sell it for others to put on their servers, I don't need
to release the source code.
If the obfuscation really works, putting an obfuscated version of a
stack on a website means that others can't download and re-use the
website without the source code. This is similar to a museum that
creates a kiosk application, using it in-house only and not distributing
copies, while a large audience has (possibly even paid) access to it.
That means that only the developer has control of the files; the website
is not released;there is no obligation to release the source code and
there no incentive to buy a commercial license.
However, if obfuscation doesn't really work, putting a website on a
server means anyone can download and re-use it, implying an obligation
to provide the source code. Unfortunately, because one is unable to
really protect the source code, the commercial license doesn't really
add something. In both cases, strong obfuscation and weak obfuscation,
there is no real incentive to buy a commercial HTML5 license.
It is only remotely related to the issue that is of my concern, but it
was suggested that one may connect to a server, such as PHP or OnRev,
specifically to keep essential parts of the code locked and hidden.
First, if I have to do this, it means that the obfuscation is
insufficient and again I might as well make the source available and I
have no incentive to buy a commercial license. Second, having to use
another tool greatly reduces that appeal of LC HTML5 and I then would
rather use PHP and JQuery for almost all web apps.
The question remains: what could be a good incentive for a commercial
developer to buy a commercial HTML5 license --besides supporting RunRev?
This question can only be answered after more explanations from RunRev.
RunRev needs to make explicit when it is necessary according to the
license and when it is useful for the developer to buy a commercial license.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille
Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553
Installer Maker for LiveCode:
http://qery.us/468
Buy my new book "Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner"
http://qery.us/3fi
LiveCode on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/runrev/
On 7/20/2014 00:09, Peter W A Wood wrote:
Mark
On 20 Jul 2014, at 00:15, Mark Schonewille <m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com>
wrote:
Peter,
The question is not whether it is possible to reverse engineer the code, but
what is the incentive for commercial users to buy a license.
The answer is the same as to the question "What is the incentive for commercial
users to buy an existing LiveCode commercial licence if you don't want to sell LiveCode
apps through Apple's app stores?"
Regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
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
