No Richard... it is not a limitation of the language ! You just have a different perspective ...:-)
Richard Gaskin wrote... 'This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" and "libre".' > To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Subject: Re: VLC and GPL and LC on iOS (was: Re: MergEXT now included with > Indy/Business IDE) > From: ambassa...@fourthworld.com > Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 08:57:42 -0700 > > Bob Sneidar wrote: > > > On May 5, 2016, at 21:33 , Kay C Lan wrote: > >> Pick your license carefully - you should ALWAYS read the fine print. > > > > This is why I am always leary of people who want to change the world. > > The devil is always in the details. > > I prefer Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's variant, "God is in the details." > > Neither the invention of the GPL nor its selection among those who use > it is in any way accidental. > > Our LiveCode community is comprised mostly of people who have decades of > experience using and building exclusively proprietary software. > > In our milieu, the "free" in "free software" is often seen with a focus > on price. But it's important to remember that the GPL expresses no > opinion about price at all. > > This is a limitation of English, in which "free" refers to both "gratis" > and "libre". > > With "free software", the "free" is about "libre", or "freedom", the > explicit freedoms granted in the license to receive source code, to be > able to study it, to modify it, and to share those modifications with > your neighbor. > > There are many open source licenses. While the GPL and its derivatives > are the most popular, there's also the Apache License, Mozilla License, > Python's and PHP's unique licenses, and many others. There's even a > WTFPL (see <http://www.wtfpl.net/faq/>, though be forewarned about the > language you'll find there <g>). > > There are almost as many different open source licenses as there are > proprietary ones. And like proprietary licenses, each has its own > unique terms and conditions. > > One of the reasons the GPL has remained so popular with so many projects > is because of the values it represents. When your goal is sharing, the > GPL can be a very good choice because it ensures the sharing will > continue downstream, that no one can hoard the code released under it. > > If that reflects your own values and your goals for a project, the GPL > is a widely accepted solution to make that happen for you. > > But as mostly proprietary-only developers, many in our community view > the value of code with different goals, mostly monetary and often > specifically with revenues derived from per-user licensing, which > requires the code remain concealed from the recipient of the software. > > In my own view, I see no harm in either approach. Both have a useful > place. But they do represent different models of how value is derived. > While relatively few here see sharing source code as more valuable > than being paid to keep it secret, there are large numbers of developers > in other corners of the world with different goals, where the value of > community contributions outweighs potential license fees. > > It may be tempting for those who work exclusively in proprietary > software to dismiss the GPL as idealistic, just as some free software > advocates dismiss proprietary software as user-hostile in preventing > users from fixing bugs or adding features they need. > > Personally, I see the GPL as a very pragmatic solution when the goal is > proliferation. By ensuring downstream enhancements are shared with the > world community, a software released under GPL can only become ever more > capable. > > Consider the Internet that deliver this post to you. Much of the 'Net's > infrastructure is run on truly free software, and most of the routers, > switches, and servers are running Linux. Linux is also at the heart of > 80% of smartphones, 65% of tablets, most embedded devices, and 95% of > the world's supercomputers. While Windows continues to dominate the > desktop, every other form of computing today is largely a Linux story. > > This would not likely have been possible without the GPL. But by > ensuring that any modifications of the software get shared back to the > community they came from, Linux has become adapted for a much broader > range of use cases than any other OS. > > We can hope that over time we'll see similar community-driven > enhancement with LiveCode. And now that v8 is here with Builder, at last > we have a scriptable interface to OS APIs and object definitions > (Widgets). So going forward enhancing the LiveCode experience is no > longer limited to those proficient in C++. Anyone who can script can > extend, modify, and share. > > And as a dual-licensed system, LiveCode lets us choose either GPL or > other licenses depending on our goals for the project at hand. > > -- > Richard Gaskin > Fourth World Systems > Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web > ____________________________________________________________________ > ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
