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?
--
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
All:
I think the best solution is that the revAvailableHandlers show the duplicates,
(perhaps italicised?).
Then the feature can be exploited, or the bug clearly delineated. But most
importantly, by clicking on the list item, one can navigate to the dups, the
feature most egregiously
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
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
The matched funding is in addition to the total. I don't know the exact source
but assume it's some government scheme, matched funding seems to be the
preferred method in the UK.
It's the main thing that makes the campaign worthwhile. They pre-sell licences
people would need anyway at a slight
G g
On Friday, July 18, 2014, Mike Kerner mikeker...@roadrunner.com wrote:
Neil,
It's a glyph font for adding icons. I filed a bug report, and Hanson said
that it was being fixed in 6.7. Now the waiting begins.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Neil Roger n...@livecode.com
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:
Thanks. I'm just surprised that they aren't pushing that aspect more.
It's a big incentive for people to donate, knowing that their donation is
actually worth more than its cash value.
Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com
Home of lcStackBrowser http://www.lcsql.com/lcstackbrowser.html and
Hi Craig,
I have to respectfully disagree. I think the best solution is to fix the
bug.
I know you and others use it as you've described for testing various
versions of the same handler but you can still do that by commenting out
all except the one you want to run instead of just the ones above
No, I don't do conferences, generally. I found the race condition I was
talking about last night, but this one will have to wait until Monday.
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Mark Talluto use...@canelasoftware.com
wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:45 PM, Mike Kerner mikeker...@roadrunner.com
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
Peter.
How did you get tripped up in your project? You mentioned that the offending
handler was farther up in the library. But then this was not in the same
script. No? If it was indeed in a script in an object higher up in the
hierarchy, then this is a core feature of LC, (and HC) and must
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Mark Talluto
use...@canelasoftware.com wrote:
On Jul 17, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Mike Kerner mikeker...@roadrunner.com wrote:
This morning, if I had the script editor open on a second screen, and set a
debug checkpoint, then the script started, the debugger would
Not sure where I said further up in the library but if I did, I apologize
for the confusion.
I got tripped up by it because I had not realized there were two instances
of the handler in my script and I happened to be editing the second one and
expecting my changes to take effect. They didn't of
15 matches
Mail list logo
