Re: Summary: Open source, closed source, and the value of code
I've hesitated to wade in on this but I think LiveCode's "official" interpretation of the GPL is wrong and also a mistake. I thought that there was a policy of encouraging those that produce libraries for other developers to also dual-license them - I didn't realise that was only supposed to be allowed for those with a commercial license. I am not a lawyer. However, I did work for an open source foundation (The Symbian Foundation - sadly a very short-lived one) and spent lots of time studying the relevant technical and legal issues and talking to our in house copyright and software licensing expert lawyer. I was the person that wrote the licensing FAQs. Also relevant to what I'm about to say: 1) I've consulted for Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and (also now almost dead but not because of my advice) BlackBerry on developer ecosystem issues. 2) I'm a lifetime license holder from the original open source Kickstarter campaign - I want LiveCode to succeed. 3) I don't actively use LiveCode... just try new bits occasionally. I'm still waiting (since that original Kickstarter) for what has become v8 and hoping it's good! First the legal... I really don't believe the GPL can apply to script only stacks and probably not stackfiles either, just because they were created with the community version. The case for standalones is much stronger and I think LiveCode is pretty safe there. A few points: > The most critical thing to remember is that it is the *intent* of the > GPL that actually matters and not the current text of any particular > version. The simple reason for that is if the GPL is ever tested in > court and the outcome is not favourable or contradicts any > interpretation the FSF have made of it then the FSF will produce a new > version which closes any loopholes which have been exposed in the court > case. Legally it is the text that matters and it's not at all certain that all loopholes can be closed. The FSF are doing something quite ingenious but they're attempting to extend copyright law in a way it was never intended to go. Any license they can come up with is fundamentally constrained by what constitutes a derivative work and what is or is not fair use. > The intent of the GPL is clear - it is fundamentally about building an > ecosystem of software where everyone has the right to contribute to it. > Nothing more, nothing less. It is not an economic force (and thus has > nothing to do with money) it is a creative force. It is about ensuring > that if I receive a piece of software then I also have the right to > modify and adapt that software and distribute any such modifications. Creating and distributing scripts or stackfiles with LiveCode does not in any way interfere with the rights or ability of others to modify, adapt and distribute LiveCode itself. The key distinctions from the Joomla and WordPress plugin scenarios (where there are already plenty of IP lawyers who'd disagree strongly with the FSF) are: 1) The GPL is designed to protect programs, not programming languages. It specifically contains language that excludes "Standard Interfaces" which are in common use amongst a programming language community. Given it's a language that predates the company and has existed under more permissive licenses in the past it'd be hard to claim it as exclusively LiveCode's IP anyway. 2) The PHP code (which is the only part covered by GPL according to the FSF, not CSS or images) in WordPress or Joomla plugins can only by executed in the context of WordPress or Joomla respectively and those are only available under the GPL. In the case of LiveCode scripts/stacks they can be executed in the context of a non-GPL program - the commercial LiveCode engine. > Absolutely every piece of software is derived from a set of files which > can be considered the 'source code' - whether that be actual > source-code, artwork, music, prose, or whatever - which is then > processed using some set of tools to produce something that you can > actually run and use - this is always 100% crystal clear. If it's absolutely 100% crystal clear what the 'source code' is when it comes to the GPL and it includes things like artwork, then why would the FSF even exclude the images and CSS from inclusion in WordPress and Joomla plugins licensing under GPL? It's because the plugin case is a real stretch for the GPL - we're talking original creative work that would be usable in another non-GPL covered environment (see point 2 in the previous section). > The point here is very subtle but I do believe it is happily > covered by the standard notions of 'derivative work' and there is a > simple acid test: could you have written the content of your > script-only-stack text file without using the ideas, notions and > existence of LiveCode? This is not at all the standard notion of 'derivative work' in copyright law. The law in many large countries (including the US, which I believe is LiveCode's biggest market) explicitl
Re: Summary: Open source, closed source, and the value of code
hi, thanks for confirming what I guess is motherships point of view. That was'n at all crystal clear, but you now made it clear : no split license what so ever for live code community. << Absolutely every piece of software is derived from a set of files which can be considered the 'source code' - whether that be actual source-code, artwork, music, prose, or whatever - which is then processed using some set of tools to produce something that you can actually run and use - this is always 100% crystal clear. >> It might be a good thing for the community to append your examples of when to use Community and where to use Closed/commercial with that case with at least the 2 following cases : 1) I intend to include in a community stack content that is outside of the GPL scope => please use commercial version 2) i intend to test an app in the community by some distribution to some public ==> please use commercial version Finaly, your precise wording is quite wide, and that raises a question : ?? Does that paragraph cited above mean that live code would regard the strategy of deploying a community "reader app" for a certain type of separate content not welcomed as being outside the scope of the GPL mantra as they see it??? Thanks for confirming that. Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Summary-Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701858p4701867.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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
Summary: Open source, closed source, and the value of code
Hi all, There has been a long thread discussing a number of different aspects relating to licensing and pricing. Thank you all for your input! In the interests of clarity, here is a summary of our position on the matters discussed. PRICING ~~~ We are raising our prices - yes. We are not doing it suddenly, we have been and are doing it over a period of time. The reason we have staged price increases has been precisely because we know we have a great many long standing users who have supported us over the years and we wanted to insulate them from increases as a 'thank you' for that long support. We even recently ran an offer which allowed you to lock in the price of $299/year, and I’m pleased to see that many of you did so. I'm minded of the following wee anecdote: A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help. Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you." The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me." So the rowboat went on. Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you." To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the motorboat went on. Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety." To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the helicopter reluctantly flew away. Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!" To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?" Of course we wouldn't have even considered raising prices if we didn't believe it was warranted. We have made huge investments in the LiveCode product over the last few years and continue to do so. The quality of every release is the best it has ever been, thanks in part to the construction of an automated build and test system, but also because of the new talent we have been able to employ, who have brought their own years of expertise to our engineering process. The timeliness with which we are able to address bugs has increased substantially, and we are close to releasing LiveCode 8 which we hope will be as transformative for the LiveCode ecosystem as the explosion in VBX/OCX controls were to the Visual Basic world. At the end of the day, LiveCode is important to a lot of people - whether they be users, company employees, shareholders or investors. LiveCode is also hugely expensive to develop and maintain and it is not going to get any cheaper to do so. There are simply an order of magnitude more things to consider when writing software at the level LiveCode has to be written at today compared to 10 years ago, and people expect software (particularly development tools) to do an order of magnitude more (which is entirely fair enough - but the more something does, the more it costs to produce and maintain). Please note, this is not a complaint on my part - part of the reason I do what I do and enjoy doing it is that I like the challenge of battling with large complex systems, and trying to simplify them (at least from the point of view from an outside observer/user). Pricing is never an easy area and is always a balancing act. We do not take such decisions lightly. This is the path for LiveCode and its ecosystem as a whole, and unfortunately it is simply never possible to please everyone. If you do have specific questions about pricing or related matters (particularly pertaining to your own situations) then please do remember that supp...@livecode.com is always there, and is generally the best place to have such discussions. Heather and Neil are always happy to receive your emails :) LICENSING ~ There is a very simple rule to apply to work out whether you need a commercial license or not. If you need to ask 'do I need a commercial license' then you probably do. In particular, if you are asking that question to try to avoid paying for a commercial license then you almost certainly do. The fact of the matter is that it comes down to one of the following: 1) If you are happy to buy into the ideal of the GPL and abide by its terms then use the community edition. 2) If not, buy a commercial edition. The most critical thing to remember is that it is the *intent* of the GPL that actually matters and not the current text of any particular version. The simple reason for that is if the GPL is ever tested in court and the outcome is not favourable or contradicts a
Summary: Open source, closed source, and the value of code
Hi all, There has been a long thread discussing a number of different aspects relating to licensing and pricing. Thank you all for your input! In the interests of clarity, here is a summary of our position on the matters discussed. PRICING ~~~ We are raising our prices - yes. We are not doing it suddenly, we have been and are doing it over a period of time. The reason we have staged price increases has been precisely because we know we have a great many long standing users who have supported us over the years and we wanted to insulate them from increases as a 'thank you' for that long support. We even recently ran an offer which allowed you to lock in the price of $299/year, and I’m pleased to see that many of you did so. I'm minded of the following wee anecdote: A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help. Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you." The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me." So the rowboat went on. Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you." To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the motorboat went on. Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety." To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith." So the helicopter reluctantly flew away. Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!" To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?" Of course we wouldn't have even considered raising prices if we didn't believe it was warranted. We have made huge investments in the LiveCode product over the last few years and continue to do so. The quality of every release is the best it has ever been, thanks in part to the construction of an automated build and test system, but also because of the new talent we have been able to employ, who have brought their own years of expertise to our engineering process. The timeliness with which we are able to address bugs has increased substantially, and we are close to releasing LiveCode 8 which we hope will be as transformative for the LiveCode ecosystem as the explosion in VBX/OCX controls were to the Visual Basic world. At the end of the day, LiveCode is important to a lot of people - whether they be users, company employees, shareholders or investors. LiveCode is also hugely expensive to develop and maintain and it is not going to get any cheaper to do so. There are simply an order of magnitude more things to consider when writing software at the level LiveCode has to be written at today compared to 10 years ago, and people expect software (particularly development tools) to do an order of magnitude more (which is entirely fair enough - but the more something does, the more it costs to produce and maintain). Please note, this is not a complaint on my part - part of the reason I do what I do and enjoy doing it is that I like the challenge of battling with large complex systems, and trying to simplify them (at least from the point of view from an outside observer/user). Pricing is never an easy area and is always a balancing act. We do not take such decisions lightly. This is the path for LiveCode and its ecosystem as a whole, and unfortunately it is simply never possible to please everyone. If you do have specific questions about pricing or related matters (particularly pertaining to your own situations) then please do remember that supp...@livecode.com is always there, and is generally the best place to have such discussions. Heather and Neil are always happy to receive your emails :) LICENSING ~ There is a very simple rule to apply to work out whether you need a commercial license or not. If you need to ask 'do I need a commercial license' then you probably do. In particular, if you are asking that question to try to avoid paying for a commercial license then you almost certainly do. The fact of the matter is that it comes down to one of the following: 1) If you are happy to buy into the ideal of the GPL and abide by its terms then use the community edition. 2) If not, buy a commercial edition. The most critical thing to remember is that it is the *intent* of the GPL that actually matters and not the current text of any particular version. The simple reason for that is if the GPL is ever tested in court and the outcome is not favourable or contradicts a
