I thought the theory was that getting lots of people to use the open
source version would lead
to all sorts of benefits to LiveCode:
1. A certain proportion of O.S. users would contribute with bug reports
and so on.
2. A certain proportion of O.S. users would, in due course, pay for a
commercial licence when they
felt a need to protect their code from prying eyes.
However, if the "road to the isles" (how to get hold of the O.S.
version) is hidden away down the bottom of
LiveCode's website's landing page, instead of being "right there", the
chances of that uptake seems
minimal.
I do get the feeling that LiveCode have an ambivalent view to their
decision to release an O.S. version;
part of which may be that points #1 and #2 have not happened with such a
whoosh as perhaps they
had hoped. But this is a circular situation which, I believe, might get
untangled if LiveCode shouted louder, and all and everywhere, about
their O.S. version, as well as presenting one of those easy-to-ken charts
showing the differences between the 3 versions of LiveCode they produce
that is easily accessible to
people who find their way (and part of the problem in "find their way"
rather than
"have it rammed down their throats") to LiveCode's website.
I have made most of my teaching resources and sample stacks available to
people here:
http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/door
nobody seems really interested, because they are all stuck on C++,
Python and VB.Net. Could that
be because, if they get to the LiveCode page the first thing they see is
an "expensive" piece of
software?
This is, to put things mildly, "an awful pity".
Richmond.
On 1/7/17 12:17 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode wrote:
gotta say....... looking at livecode.com it is very clear that livecode is
nearly hoping that people won't notice that there is an open source version
and buy a license because they didn't know any better.
shady....shady...... almost understandable, but why go open source if you
gonna pretend like you aren't?
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Keith Martin <thatke...@mac.com> wrote:
On 4 Jan 2017, at 14:11, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
What this message should tell the people on the mother-ship is that they
need to shout a bit louder
about the Open Source version
Amen! The FOSS, Community edition is a great thing, and it's
It'd also be great if the mother ship would also consider, one day, a more
inexpensive way to step up to the level where App Store submission is
possible, perhaps as a short-term (say, 1 month?) window, bundled with
advice for efficient App Store submission? Perhaps something similar for
HTML5 publication in the future? LC is wonderful, but it is feeling more
and more like a product with a 'keep out, professionals only' label on the
virtual box... :-/
Me, I'd SO glad I got Indy in time to keep annual cost just about
affordable. I make peanuts (at most!) from what I build, but that's not the
point for me; it's just too much fun not to be part of the LC builder
community. I did once hope HTML5 would be available as part of that, but
sadly it's separate. :(
k
---
Keith Martin
Senior Lecturer, LCC (University of the Arts London)
Technical Editor, MacUser magazine (1997-2015)
http://PanoramaPhotographer.com
http://thatkeith.com
+44 (0)7909541365
---
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
