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
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
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:
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
