Version control, I would argue is still necessary even if its just a single person or anyone else working on collaborating on the open source tooling directed at the community of livecode developers. To be able to maintain development branches and refactor without needing to have 50 copies of stack files backed up and lying around. I can totally see the benefits to the business license, but I'm pretty shocked to that native GIT support and a proper MVC-style framework for livecode isn't part of Livecode Community. I think this is a big mistake on the part of the steward company of this software. I get the framework thing even, almost. But basic Version Control support? Wowsa. That's some third rate nickel and diming of your user base.
All that stuff people were worried about happening a few weeks back in emails, and all the damage control that was done on part of the community leaders seems like it was justified after seeing this. I think it's funny that Kevin suggested people fork livecode/re-implement these things for the community if they want. Right on... they took peoples money to re-engineer their product. Now that you have something nice and shiny they can sell as a result of that, it doesn't really matter what goes into the open source version so long as it has the label "Open Source" applied to it for oos and ahs. In before Company Damage Control: I know the fanboys and company shills will disagree but this is the last straw for me. I know these people will say good riddance, but they are deluded by their own fetishism. Good luck list/livecode community, I'll see you later. It's a shame they couldn't learn anything from the node.js/io.js open governance debate. I was holding out for a bit to see what comes of it, but this just sours the whole thing for me. I'd pay a lot towards licensing for support and fringe features that I need, but version control is hardly a fringe feature. They messed up with this, big time. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:34 AM Lynn Fredricks < lfredri...@proactive-intl.com> wrote: > > That said, I'm a single developer, so git isn't > > important to me. Also, if the purpose of the Indy license was > > to support single developers, working alone, would git be > > particularly attractive? Just asking. > > Bill > > That makes sense to me, Bill. > > I cannot comment specifically on the Business Application Framework, but if > we are talking specifically about team features, aren't team features > contrary to the idea of an "indie" license - which to me, suggests working > on your own projects as an "indie" developer. > > Best regards, > > Lynn Fredricks > President > Paradigma Software > http://www.paradigmasoft.com > > Valentina SQL Server: The Ultra-fast, Royalty Free Database Server > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Kind regards, Andrew Kluthe _______________________________________________ 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
