Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Kevin, Thanks for making clear where you stand on this. I think I can agree with the argument that since the app is executed in the client, it is ditributed. However, the obligation to give away the source immediately may need a little moderation, since according to the GPL offering the source code is sufficient. One doesn't have to keep the source on the server available for immediate download. -- 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 15:54, Kevin Miller wrote: That's right for the server. However in the case of an HTML5 app it is not correct. It is going to be downloaded and executed on the client. That classifies as having distributed it in compiled form. If you do that, you immediately have to give away the full source under GPL to every visitor to your website. Kind regards, Kevin ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: However, the obligation to give away the source immediately may need a little moderation, since according to the GPL offering the source code is sufficient. One doesn't have to keep the source on the server available for immediate download. Also, it doesn't have to be offered to the world; only the recipient of the code (who is free to send it on to the world) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Exactly. -- Kind regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Http://economy-x-talk.com Share the clipboard of your computer over a local network with Clipboard Link http://clipboardlink.economy-x-talk.com Op 22 jul. 2014 om 18:55 heeft Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven: Also, it doesn't have to be offered to the world; only the recipient of the code (who is free to send it on to the world) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Right, its not exactly going to be practical to take it apart. As we develop this we¹ll be looking at obfuscation to make it as hard as possible. Nor would you have any right to use the code or redistribute it. So there is a practical difference and a difference of intent. If its commercial, you¹re hacking which is hard and the original author can also look to appropriate law for protection. GPL is quite different. The HTML5 output on the page is the compiled form¹ in GPL terms. The HTML5 compiled form is not the original source. It would not be considered to fulfill the terms of the GPL. The GPL binds you to releasing the original, modifiable source code. Everyone who receives the app - I.e. everyone who visits your web page - has to also be provided with the opportunity to receive the original source so that they can modify it and redistribute as they choose. Imagine you are contracted to produce a web app for a company to log sales from your network of sales people and affiliates on the road. If you give that to the client under GPL, they would need to include a link within that app to download the source code and anyone could take it and use the entire app freely. That is hardly going to be acceptable. There are lots of other such examples. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code On 19/07/2014 15:16, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote: Peter W A Wood wrote: It is probably as easy to disassemble and modify a LiveCode generated binary as it will be to modify a LiveCode generated JavaScript file. Do you worry about people disassembling your binaries to modify the code it? It would take the same level of skill to do change the generated JavaScript code. Take a look at this example - http://vps2.etotheipiplusone.com:30176/redmine/emscripten-qt-examples/kate /kate.js.jo.js Sure some dishonest person could spend a vast amount of time to modify one of your applications but would they find it worthwhile? I don't think so. That example, onerous as it is, may be too generous, using readable labels and such. The JS translation LC's looking at will use extensions to LLVM to produce, so the output would likely look more like the source you see at Google Maps - very, very difficult to convert into a human-editable form, arguably more akin to the output you get running any object code through modern disassemblers - useful only to experts who could probably rewrite your app from scratch faster than they could decode compact symbols. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Hi list, I've been following this thread and was wondering : please correct me if I'm mistaken, but we'll still be in a client/server configuration, so keeping the important code server-side could be a way to avoid people hacking/stealing your app... Sure, dealing with client/server requests will require more coding and expertise than simply compiling a stack in html5 and viewing it in a browser, but in critical situations it might be a workaround... And nevertheless it will be an easier task than coding the server side in LC and the client side in js/html as many of us have been doing for a while, since everything will be coded with LC... And although this is not my field of expertise, according to the few google searches I've done, it looks like js obfuscation can always be reverse engineered, so... Best jbv ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
You¹ll always have a choice how much code to put on the server side and in the client. Our HTML5 output operates on your stack within the client browser, like a standalone does now. However you can still connect to a web service or LC server in the same way you do today. Keeping key portions of code there could be used to aid security. Almost everything computing can be reverse engineered and hacked with enough effort. You can reverse engineer a complied app, or dig around in a debugger. That doesn¹t make it easy, doesn¹t make it practical, doesn¹t necessarily give you source code that is editable, nor give you any rights to use it. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code On 20/07/2014 12:46, j...@souslelogo.com j...@souslelogo.com wrote: Hi list, I've been following this thread and was wondering : please correct me if I'm mistaken, but we'll still be in a client/server configuration, so keeping the important code server-side could be a way to avoid people hacking/stealing your app... Sure, dealing with client/server requests will require more coding and expertise than simply compiling a stack in html5 and viewing it in a browser, but in critical situations it might be a workaround... And nevertheless it will be an easier task than coding the server side in LC and the client side in js/html as many of us have been doing for a while, since everything will be coded with LC... And although this is not my field of expertise, according to the few google searches I've done, it looks like js obfuscation can always be reverse engineered, so... Best jbv ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Maybe I'm naive, but: as far as I understand things, the main difference [and I am not even going to touch on legal issues here as everybody well knows that what is hackable, legal or illegal, gets hacked sooner or later] between the Commercial and Community editions of Livecode is that with the Commercial variant one can password protect one's code and with the Community variant one cannot. What this means is that it is hellishly difficult for somebody to extract the code from a standalone produced with the Commercial version, while it is dead easy from a standalone produced with the Community version. This is the SINGLE reason to buy the commercial version of Livecode. Now, if the HTML5 'thing' that the new/HTMLfived version of Livecode will produce does not differ between the Commercial and Community versions; i.e. the code [whether this be Javascript or Livecode] is still gettable at: why would anyone bother to buy the Commercial variant? If I am lucky, in my naivety, I have just summarised the main question that is at the centre of all the other postings in this thread. 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
License agreements are not irrelevant. We do not have a single reason for commercial as it stands by any means. Most users are honest and are willing to pay for software providing doing so is fair, easy and convenient. In commercial desktop/mobile we have password protection that is not present in non-commercial. In commercial HTML5, we will have obfuscation that is not present in non-commercial. Both can be hacked in theory. Neither will be easy. Obfuscated source code does not convert well into human readable code no matter what you do. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code On 20/07/2014 14:55, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe I'm naive, but: as far as I understand things, the main difference [and I am not even going to touch on legal issues here as everybody well knows that what is hackable, legal or illegal, gets hacked sooner or later] between the Commercial and Community editions of Livecode is that with the Commercial variant one can password protect one's code and with the Community variant one cannot. What this means is that it is hellishly difficult for somebody to extract the code from a standalone produced with the Commercial version, while it is dead easy from a standalone produced with the Community version. This is the SINGLE reason to buy the commercial version of Livecode. -- -- Now, if the HTML5 'thing' that the new/HTMLfived version of Livecode will produce does not differ between the Commercial and Community versions; i.e. the code [whether this be Javascript or Livecode] is still gettable at: why would anyone bother to buy the Commercial variant? -- -- If I am lucky, in my naivety, I have just summarised the main question that is at the centre of all the other postings in this thread. 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 ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
On 20/07/14 17:07, Kevin Miller wrote: License agreements are not irrelevant. We do not have a single reason for commercial as it stands by any means. Most users are honest and are willing to pay for software providing doing so is fair, easy and convenient. In commercial desktop/mobile we have password protection that is not present in non-commercial. In commercial HTML5, we will have obfuscation that is not present in non-commercial. Both can be hacked in theory. Neither will be easy. Obfuscated source code does not convert well into human readable code no matter what you do. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code Thanks for that Kevin. I do, however, have a few questions, and a few points: Q1. If password protection of stacks in standalones is NOT the only difference [beyond the very different licensing arrangements] between the Commercial and the Community variants of Livecode could you be kind enough to explain what the other differences are? P1. I don't doubt that most users are honest and are willing to pay for software. However, once a piece of software becomes successful it becomes a target for pirating and reverse engineering. The problem as always, is not with most users, it is with the one nasty piece of stuff. When walking across the hills, even if everybody bar 1 of one's party can put on a pretty turn of speed, one MUST always wait for the slow one. Q2. Can you please explain what 'obfuscation' means exactly. P2. 'Obfuscated' code will still have to be executable. 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
The type of license you would buy is not as relevant right now as whether you decide to support the campaign in the first place. If there is no funding for the project, no one will need to decide anything about it. When it does become time to make that decision, I would like to think that any commercial developer who relies on LiveCode for their income would be happy to support the company who provides them their tools. On July 20, 2014 8:43:25 AM CDT, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: The question remains: what could be a good incentive for a commercial developer to buy a commercial HTML5 license --besides supporting RunRev? -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
On 20/07/14 18:57, J. Landman Gay wrote: The type of license you would buy is not as relevant right now as whether you decide to support the campaign in the first place. If there is no funding for the project, no one will need to decide anything about it. When it does become time to make that decision, I would like to think that any commercial developer who relies on LiveCode for their income would be happy to support the company who provides them their tools. On July 20, 2014 8:43:25 AM CDT, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: The question remains: what could be a good incentive for a commercial developer to buy a commercial HTML5 license --besides supporting RunRev? I only wish I had any income from my programming work to depend on. This year (2014) I made 20 Euros: smoking baby! 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: 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. Mark et al, I will preface this by saying that HTML5 export isn't something I'm particularly interested in right now as my company doesn't have an immediate need. We already have our web products running using existing libraries. So I haven't been thinking about HTML5 too much other than how the campaign benefits RunRev going forward. I have also wondered whether or not people will pay for HTML5 output licenses. It seems to me that the primary (I'm not saying the only) people that LiveCode HTML5 output will appeal to will be people who don't need a commercial license. I'm thinking educators and company employees developing internal tools for a company (they don't need commercial licenses, do they?). The commercial developer has a lot of CSS/JavaScript tools and libraries available to them already and lots of programmers available that know these tools. Based on what I've read, the LiveCode HTML5 deployment won't necessarily be light weight which I think rules it out in many cases. While there will probably be small business that will pay for HMTL5 output from LiveCode, the question is whether or not there will be enough? Now, there is a scenario where I could see some potential benefit for commercial developers. What if LiveCode IDE became a front end for generating output for the client (HTML/CSS/Javascript) and the server (LiveCode)? A commercial app is always going to have their business logic running on the server itself rather than the client. Perhaps if LiveCode made it easy to create the HTML/CSS/Javascript front end AND made it easy to connect that front end to the server calls then you may have a business case. For the server code I'm thinking of a tree interface in the IDE that allowed you to build a tree representing the REST interface for the server calls. You would place your scripts in the proper folder of the tree thus creating the RESTful URI. You could then drag server script actions onto your UI elements right inside of LiveCode. An example would be dragging a PUT call to a server script that updated a database row onto the submit button of a form. Clicking the button submits the form to the server which in turn updates a data source. Or dragging a GET call to a server script that listed 25 items at a time from a database onto a button in the UI. You would essentially be developing your web UI and your server logic using the exact same language. That could be cool. One problem for me, however, is that currently the language is quite limited when compared to Ruby on Rails and PHP. With LiveCode you can't create custom objects in your code. When it comes to representing your own business logic you are limited to functions and commands. When you take the UI out of the equation (like you do with server side languages) I think it becomes even more important that the language be as expressive with your application specific objects as it is with the objects that are built in. PHP and Ruby allow you to do that. LiveCode does not. At least not yet. Once Open Language arrives, however, LiveCode will become much more interesting (in my view) as a web development language. With open language we will be able to define the english-like syntax for any objects that we need for the business logic in our own applications. That will be really powerful. Anyhow, just some thoughts as I don't fully understand how HTML 5 will generate revenue just yet. I know Kevin and the team have put a lot of thought into this and I don't doubt that there are a lot of people that want to use it. I'm just not sure how it will pay for itself going forward. -- Trevor DeVore Blue Mango Learning Systems www.screensteps.com-www.clarify-it.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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
This is a key point. HTML5 will come hot on the heels of Open Language and can be considered in that context. In terms of monetization, web apps can be used for many purposes, particularly with a tool like LiveCode that will allow the provision of very rich functionality. There are enough places the GPL is not appropriate for them that we can monetize. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code On 20/07/2014 20:57, Trevor DeVore li...@mangomultimedia.com wrote: Once Open Language arrives, however, LiveCode will become much more interesting (in my view) as a web development language. With open language we will be able to define the english-like syntax for any objects that we need for the business logic in our own applications. That will be really powerful. ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Obviously, Peter. Brahmanathaswami and I are well aware of it. The point, however, is that if you have the commercial license, you're still releasing the source, but in obfuscated, rather than compiled, form. So, the question remains, why would one buy a commercial license? -- Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering http://economy-x-talk.com Download Color Converter at http://www.color-converter.com Op 19-jul-2014, om 2:37 heeft Peter W A Wood het volgende geschreven: Hi Mark Surely the difference between the open source and commercial versions is that under the the terms of the GPL if you distribute a LiveCode generated HTML5 application you must make the LiveCode source available. Regards Peter On 18 Jul 2014, at 22:24, Mark Schonewille m.schonewille@economy-x- talk.com wrote: Thanks for the reply, Kevin. I'm glad that no CGI engine is used. I did read that the engine will be compiled to JavaScript. The website also says that no plug-in is needed and that the app will run in the browser. Both statements say nothing about the server. The website shows no install in big letters and states that the end-user doesn't need to install any software. Nowhere it is said that the developer doesn't need to install any software on the server. It might help if the website explicitly said that no CGI will have to be installed and that only the HTML5 files, (text files and perhaps media files), need to be copied onto a server. Pehaps it is all clear to native speakers of English, but a more explicit wording of the website just might convince some non- native speakers who are now reluctant to support the HTML5 initiative. I still wonder about the closed nature of the HTML5 files. It is probably possible to write a converter, which converts the JS to something readable. Even without such a converter, one would be able to download the files and put them on another web server, perhaps with a few small modifications. Therefore I too wonder what a commercial HTML5 license can do for a company. I'm curious what Heather will answer Brahmanathaswami on this matter. Obviously, obfuscating and licensing are two different things. In my previous e-mail, I only meant to say that obfuscation and licensing could offer opportunities that make closed-source licensing worthwhile for both RunRev and LiveCode users. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote. On 17 jul 2014, at 22:35, Kevin Miller wrote: This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code ___ 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
Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Mark It is probably as easy to disassemble and modify a LiveCode generated binary as it will be to modify a LiveCode generated JavaScript file. Do you worry about people disassembling your binaries to modify the code it? It would take the same level of skill to do change the generated JavaScript code. Take a look at this example - http://vps2.etotheipiplusone.com:30176/redmine/emscripten-qt-examples/kate/kate.js.jo.js Sure some dishonest person could spend a vast amount of time to modify one of your applications but would they find it worthwhile? I don't think so. Regards Peter On 19 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Obviously, Peter. Brahmanathaswami and I are well aware of it. The point, however, is that if you have the commercial license, you're still releasing the source, but in obfuscated, rather than compiled, form. So, the question remains, why would one buy a commercial license? -- Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering http://economy-x-talk.com Download Color Converter at http://www.color-converter.com Op 19-jul-2014, om 2:37 heeft Peter W A Wood het volgende geschreven: Hi Mark Surely the difference between the open source and commercial versions is that under the the terms of the GPL if you distribute a LiveCode generated HTML5 application you must make the LiveCode source available. Regards Peter On 18 Jul 2014, at 22:24, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Thanks for the reply, Kevin. I'm glad that no CGI engine is used. I did read that the engine will be compiled to JavaScript. The website also says that no plug-in is needed and that the app will run in the browser. Both statements say nothing about the server. The website shows no install in big letters and states that the end-user doesn't need to install any software. Nowhere it is said that the developer doesn't need to install any software on the server. It might help if the website explicitly said that no CGI will have to be installed and that only the HTML5 files, (text files and perhaps media files), need to be copied onto a server. Pehaps it is all clear to native speakers of English, but a more explicit wording of the website just might convince some non-native speakers who are now reluctant to support the HTML5 initiative. I still wonder about the closed nature of the HTML5 files. It is probably possible to write a converter, which converts the JS to something readable. Even without such a converter, one would be able to download the files and put them on another web server, perhaps with a few small modifications. Therefore I too wonder what a commercial HTML5 license can do for a company. I'm curious what Heather will answer Brahmanathaswami on this matter. Obviously, obfuscating and licensing are two different things. In my previous e-mail, I only meant to say that obfuscation and licensing could offer opportunities that make closed-source licensing worthwhile for both RunRev and LiveCode users. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote. On 17 jul 2014, at 22:35, Kevin Miller wrote: This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code ___ 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:
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Peter W A Wood wrote: It is probably as easy to disassemble and modify a LiveCode generated binary as it will be to modify a LiveCode generated JavaScript file. Do you worry about people disassembling your binaries to modify the code it? It would take the same level of skill to do change the generated JavaScript code. Take a look at this example - http://vps2.etotheipiplusone.com:30176/redmine/emscripten-qt-examples/kate/kate.js.jo.js Sure some dishonest person could spend a vast amount of time to modify one of your applications but would they find it worthwhile? I don't think so. That example, onerous as it is, may be too generous, using readable labels and such. The JS translation LC's looking at will use extensions to LLVM to produce, so the output would likely look more like the source you see at Google Maps - very, very difficult to convert into a human-editable form, arguably more akin to the output you get running any object code through modern disassemblers - useful only to experts who could probably rewrite your app from scratch faster than they could decode compact symbols. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Systems Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
On 19 Jul 2014, at 22:16, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote: That example, onerous as it is, may be too generous, using readable labels and such. I think you might get a different impression if you started at the end of the file and read forward :-) The JS translation LC's looking at will use extensions to LLVM to produce, so the output would likely look more like the source you see at Google Maps - very, very difficult to convert into a human-editable form, arguably more akin to the output you get running any object code through modern disassemblers - useful only to experts who could probably rewrite your app from scratch faster than they could decode compact symbols. Perhaps the most telling argument is that RunRev clearly aren't worried about the Commercial version of LiveCode being made available in such form. 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
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. -- 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 7/19/2014 11:45, Peter W A Wood wrote: Mark It is probably as easy to disassemble and modify a LiveCode generated binary as it will be to modify a LiveCode generated JavaScript file. Do you worry about people disassembling your binaries to modify the code it? It would take the same level of skill to do change the generated JavaScript code. Take a look at this example - http://vps2.etotheipiplusone.com:30176/redmine/emscripten-qt-examples/kate/kate.js.jo.js Sure some dishonest person could spend a vast amount of time to modify one of your applications but would they find it worthwhile? I don't think so. Regards Peter On 19 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Obviously, Peter. Brahmanathaswami and I are well aware of it. The point, however, is that if you have the commercial license, you're still releasing the source, but in obfuscated, rather than compiled, form. So, the question remains, why would one buy a commercial license? -- Economy-x-Talk Consultancy and Software Engineering http://economy-x-talk.com Download Color Converter at http://www.color-converter.com Op 19-jul-2014, om 2:37 heeft Peter W A Wood het volgende geschreven: Hi Mark Surely the difference between the open source and commercial versions is that under the the terms of the GPL if you distribute a LiveCode generated HTML5 application you must make the LiveCode source available. Regards Peter On 18 Jul 2014, at 22:24, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Thanks for the reply, Kevin. I'm glad that no CGI engine is used. I did read that the engine will be compiled to JavaScript. The website also says that no plug-in is needed and that the app will run in the browser. Both statements say nothing about the server. The website shows no install in big letters and states that the end-user doesn't need to install any software. Nowhere it is said that the developer doesn't need to install any software on the server. It might help if the website explicitly said that no CGI will have to be installed and that only the HTML5 files, (text files and perhaps media files), need to be copied onto a server. Pehaps it is all clear to native speakers of English, but a more explicit wording of the website just might convince some non-native speakers who are now reluctant to support the HTML5 initiative. I still wonder about the closed nature of the HTML5 files. It is probably possible to write a converter, which converts the JS to something readable. Even without such a converter, one would be able to download the files and put them on another web server, perhaps with a few small modifications. Therefore I too wonder what a commercial HTML5 license can do for a company. I'm curious what Heather will answer Brahmanathaswami on this matter. Obviously, obfuscating and licensing are two different things. In my previous e-mail, I only meant to say that obfuscation and licensing could offer opportunities that make closed-source licensing worthwhile for both RunRev and LiveCode users. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote. On 17 jul 2014, at 22:35, Kevin Miller wrote: This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Thanks for the reply, Kevin. I'm glad that no CGI engine is used. I did read that the engine will be compiled to JavaScript. The website also says that no plug-in is needed and that the app will run in the browser. Both statements say nothing about the server. The website shows no install in big letters and states that the end-user doesn't need to install any software. Nowhere it is said that the developer doesn't need to install any software on the server. It might help if the website explicitly said that no CGI will have to be installed and that only the HTML5 files, (text files and perhaps media files), need to be copied onto a server. Pehaps it is all clear to native speakers of English, but a more explicit wording of the website just might convince some non-native speakers who are now reluctant to support the HTML5 initiative. I still wonder about the closed nature of the HTML5 files. It is probably possible to write a converter, which converts the JS to something readable. Even without such a converter, one would be able to download the files and put them on another web server, perhaps with a few small modifications. Therefore I too wonder what a commercial HTML5 license can do for a company. I'm curious what Heather will answer Brahmanathaswami on this matter. Obviously, obfuscating and licensing are two different things. In my previous e-mail, I only meant to say that obfuscation and licensing could offer opportunities that make closed-source licensing worthwhile for both RunRev and LiveCode users. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote. On 17 jul 2014, at 22:35, Kevin Miller wrote: This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code ___ 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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Brahmanathswami wrote: So if we create an app under GPL, then we just need a URL where anyone can get source. ...along with a copy of the GPL license so that those who download the source can fully understand their rights and responsibilities under the license. For example, RunRev themselves post the license prominently in their GitHub repository: https://github.com/runrev/livecode/blob/master/LICENSE That would fulfill the minimum requirements for the letter of the license, but we can go further to actively embrace its spirit as well. While many think of open source as being able to get software at no cost, that's really just an extra that comes along for the ride, never actually addressed in the GPL itself. Instead, the focus of the GPL is about sharing, with the aim of encouraging proliferation of enhancements of a work for the benefit of all mankind. When you post your source files, it's helpful to also actively encourage those who work with those source files to submit their changes back to you, and to set up a process for doing so. With such collaboration you can build a certain set of features that meet your immediate needs, and as others expand on them you can incorporate those useful to your project into your main branch, to become part of your next release. Through collaboration a project that may begin with even a modest scope can grow to become ever more useful to a wider range of people. LiveCode has only been open source a little more than a year, and in that relatively brief period we've already seen a tremendous number of enhancements and bug fixes contributed by the community, making LiveCode that much better for everyone. When we apply that to our own projects where the GPL is a good fit for our goals, actively embracing collaboration, we can see that benefit for our own work as well, fostering a proliferation of useful code beyond what a single team can produce on their own. -- Richard Gaskin LiveCode Community Manager rich...@livecode.org ___ 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
Fwd: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Hi Mark Surely the difference between the open source and commercial versions is that under the the terms of the GPL if you distribute a LiveCode generated HTML5 application you must make the LiveCode source available. Regards Peter On 18 Jul 2014, at 22:24, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Thanks for the reply, Kevin. I'm glad that no CGI engine is used. I did read that the engine will be compiled to JavaScript. The website also says that no plug-in is needed and that the app will run in the browser. Both statements say nothing about the server. The website shows no install in big letters and states that the end-user doesn't need to install any software. Nowhere it is said that the developer doesn't need to install any software on the server. It might help if the website explicitly said that no CGI will have to be installed and that only the HTML5 files, (text files and perhaps media files), need to be copied onto a server. Pehaps it is all clear to native speakers of English, but a more explicit wording of the website just might convince some non-native speakers who are now reluctant to support the HTML5 initiative. I still wonder about the closed nature of the HTML5 files. It is probably possible to write a converter, which converts the JS to something readable. Even without such a converter, one would be able to download the files and put them on another web server, perhaps with a few small modifications. Therefore I too wonder what a commercial HTML5 license can do for a company. I'm curious what Heather will answer Brahmanathaswami on this matter. Obviously, obfuscating and licensing are two different things. In my previous e-mail, I only meant to say that obfuscation and licensing could offer opportunities that make closed-source licensing worthwhile for both RunRev and LiveCode users. -- Best regards, Mark Schonewille Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer KvK: 50277553 Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote. On 17 jul 2014, at 22:35, Kevin Miller wrote: This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code ___ 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
Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Can anyone tell me what this actually get us? The HTML5 license permits closed source deployment to HTML5 only, other platforms are not included My naive understanding of HTML5 is deployed in a web browser why and where and in what contexts and also how would you need close source deployment... isn't the CSS, JS and HTML for any such app completely inspect-able (just open page source and then click on the css link and js links...) Swasti Astu, Be Well! Brahmanathaswami Kauai's Hindu Monastery www.HimalayanAcademy.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
RE: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
I would think that when the engine/stacks get folded into some JS/CSS/HTML it will be an incomprehensible jumble of code. This code will be so big that to unravel it would be close to impossible. Ralph DiMola IT Director Evergreen Information Services rdim...@evergreeninfo.net -Original Message- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Brahmanathswami Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:45 PM To: How to use LiveCode Subject: Commercial Indy License for HTML5 Can anyone tell me what this actually get us? The HTML5 license permits closed source deployment to HTML5 only, other platforms are not included My naive understanding of HTML5 is deployed in a web browser why and where and in what contexts and also how would you need close source deployment... isn't the CSS, JS and HTML for any such app completely inspect-able (just open page source and then click on the css link and js links...) Swasti Astu, Be Well! Brahmanathaswami Kauai's Hindu Monastery www.HimalayanAcademy.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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Hi Brahmanathaswami , I don't have the slightest idea. LiveCode's HTML5 website doesn't seem to provide any information about it. I'm a little worried that they will use a CGI engine in the same way as Xojo does. The engine and the stack would be compiled into a CGI engine, which then produces Javascript that can render the website in the browser. That would be a show stopper for me, because shared servers often don't allow installation of additional CGI engines. If they don't use a CGI engine, I don't see how the HTML5 website could be closed source. As Ralph writes, it is true that the Javascript will probably be obfuscated or just too big to be interpreted by the human reader, but that doesn't stop anyone from reading the source code and converting it to something readable --LiveCode is a big project too, but apparently it can still be read :-) Then again, the text of the license might just contain some phrase, which obliges any big company to publish the stacks in downloadable form, unless the company has a commercial license. Anyway, I couldn't find any info about this and that bugs me. I have no idea if I should give a little money. -- 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 7/17/2014 20:45, Brahmanathswami wrote: Can anyone tell me what this actually get us? The HTML5 license permits closed source deployment to HTML5 only, other platforms are not included My naive understanding of HTML5 is deployed in a web browser why and where and in what contexts and also how would you need close source deployment... isn't the CSS, JS and HTML for any such app completely inspect-able (just open page source and then click on the css link and js links...) Swasti Astu, Be Well! Brahmanathaswami Kauai's Hindu Monastery www.HimalayanAcademy.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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
This has been set out on the web page for HTML5 and on the video. It is not a CGI. It renders client side in the browser, without a plug in. Technically yes, you can look at the JavaScript in a browser. However given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ ke...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/ LiveCode: Everyone can code On 17/07/2014 21:28, Mark Schonewille m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote: Hi Brahmanathaswami , I don't have the slightest idea. LiveCode's HTML5 website doesn't seem to provide any information about it. I'm a little worried that they will use a CGI engine in the same way as Xojo does. The engine and the stack would be compiled into a CGI engine, which then produces Javascript that can render the website in the browser. That would be a show stopper for me, because shared servers often don't allow installation of additional CGI engines. If they don't use a CGI engine, I don't see how the HTML5 website could be closed source. As Ralph writes, it is true that the Javascript will probably be obfuscated or just too big to be interpreted by the human reader, but that doesn't stop anyone from reading the source code and converting it to something readable --LiveCode is a big project too, but apparently it can still be read :-) Then again, the text of the license might just contain some phrase, which obliges any big company to publish the stacks in downloadable form, unless the company has a commercial license. Anyway, I couldn't find any info about this and that bugs me. I have no idea if I should give a little money. -- 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 7/17/2014 20:45, Brahmanathswami wrote: Can anyone tell me what this actually get us? The HTML5 license permits closed source deployment to HTML5 only, other platforms are not included My naive understanding of HTML5 is deployed in a web browser why and where and in what contexts and also how would you need close source deployment... isn't the CSS, JS and HTML for any such app completely inspect-able (just open page source and then click on the css link and js links...) Swasti Astu, Be Well! Brahmanathaswami Kauai's Hindu Monastery www.HimalayanAcademy.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
Re: Commercial Indy License for HTML5
Kevin Miller wrote: given the complexity of it + obfuscation you won¹t realistically be able to make much sense of it. There is a whole world of difference between obfuscated/unreadable JavaScript protected by copyright and the GPL, which requires you to upload the stacks for your entire application with readable, editable and redistributable code. Understood. That does help.. .thanks Kevin. So if we create an app under GPL, then we just need a URL where anyone can get source. I remember years ago reading a white paper from Adobe on the JS that was being exported from GoLive, in which they stated be aware that the level of abstraction of the Javascript exported by GoLive is such that it will in all likelihood be virtually incomprehensible or something along those lines. I presume were trying to forestall any complaints from developers who thought they could work in WSIWIG and then subsequently tweak/customize the JS after it was dumped from GoLive. As a non-profit, edu org we really have no interest in doing any closed source web apps, and the only reason I do own and continue to own a LiveCode commercial license is because of Apple's policies for getting into their store. Ergo the perk to get an Indy commercial HTML5 license is not much of one for us here . This I can see might be important for other developers though. Especially if you are doing apps for other clients. (never a case for us) Maybe Heather can find some other perks for us that I can use to convince the purse holders here contribute to the campaign. (I wrote to her already) ___ 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
