Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

ww.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/derivative.html Enjoy! Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4702006.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann wrote: > GPL is a very special kind of automatic contract that is attached > to a piece of work and which describes what the receiver of that > piece of work can or not do with it. > > As such it is a very special contract in the world of contracts > because it does not require the

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Robert Mann wrote: > << I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not) > distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully > would need to be licensed in a GPL compatible license.>> > > Hi Monte, I

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

license. > > Cheers > > Monte > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@.runrev > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > subscription preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman

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

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

none of my business... I just needed to know where to stand on. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701870.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Mark Wieder wrote: > Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes, > I actually do read these things) that started "Neither party will > publicly disclose the existence of this document..." I recoiled, > this caused a huddle of half a dozen people for several minutes, > the

Re: Summary: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

ot 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

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 03/01/2016 09:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: I have been trying to follow this thread, not always successfully, but common sense tells me: Heh. Common sense in a discussion of legal things. Yesterday I was handed an nda to sign. There was a clause (yes, I actually do read these things)

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

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

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

s all and I hope it can help others have a clearer view of the impact of licensings schemes in their plans. RObert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701848.html Sent from t

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 01/03/2016 23:58, Robert Mann wrote: == And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both tools for the same code. In practice, can I code part of an application in the community and part of it in the closed IDE. If not, please do precise if there are markers somewhere that are

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 5:06 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > > Two hypotheticals: > > 1. I create a viewer app to display my original artwork as part of my > job-seeking resume. The viewer seems useful so I decide to distribute it to > others so they can make their own

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 3/1/2016 11:41 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff? I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not) distributed with the application

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 4:35 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > > Does that sound right to all you guys who read up on this stuff? I believe any media or other content (whether separate files or not) distributed with the application and/or required to make it function fully

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 3/1/2016 9:53 PM, Robert Mann wrote: If livecode's wants that all stacks and content made with the Community version be fully GPL3 compatible, all media used in a stack must be under a CC BY-SA 4.0 type license, which is directly compatible with GPLv3. I have been trying to follow this

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

r all to know what can be done and what cannot be done with the community version. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701826.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:41 PM, Robert Mann wrote: > > So basically, all clients of any indie developer have to buy/get their own > license for their product. No as far as I’m aware clients only need to get their own license if they are also a developer. If the clients aren’t

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

, issues and solutions to make good use of this NRJ) -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701822.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> MonteG wrote: > Well.. it depends on what he’s apologising for ;-) LOL! JimL ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:57 PM, Jim Lambert wrote: > >> Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because >> I'm >> trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60. > > Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal! Well.. it depends on what he’s

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> RichardG wrote: > > Whether I buy flowers for my wife because I think she's pretty or because I'm > trying to apologize, either way the florist makes $60. Either way Tiffany is one lucky gal! Jim Lambert ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann wrote: > RE : issue : does livecode consider that all illustrative material > & text etc in a stack to their view fall under GPL I had thought Mark Waddingham had addressed that. When media is related to the functionality, such as an icon, that would seem reasonable to expect

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 1:10 PM, Robert Mann wrote: > > 2) if you do not make it public, than when you're ready, you're free to turn > for help to an indie/pro developer to finish it up and prepare it for iOS > launch under whatever license suites you. I refer you to clauses 5 b, d,

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 12:58 PM, Robert Mann wrote: > > So all coding would be available to all of course. But these copyrighted > elements will not be GPL compatible because as simple as it is french law > does not allow an author to push away his copyrights. Perhaps you are

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701816.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 su

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

sage in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701814.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@l

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Man wrote: > == And lastly, the kafkaesque position vis a vis the use of both > tools for the same code. In practice, can I code part of an > application in the community and part of it in the closed IDE. The GPL is a distribution license; it doesn't affect anything you do in your home

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Matt Maier wrote: > Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license, > written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more > colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of > cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license, written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusion. It's worth noting that

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann wrote: > Coming back to Livecode OS I'm really surprised that nobody seem to have > considered stacks as being not only programs but multimedia interactive > media, and the related legal stuff like copyright of these sources. > > That is the basic in any book publishing see : >

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Mark Waddingham covered this in his post: Whilst the GPL can be used to cover content there are more (GPL compatible) suitable ones. The main problem with applying the GPL to content is deciding what constitutes the 'source code'. Indeed, I believe there is an FAQ on the FSF site about such

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Matt Maier wrote: > Robert, as you conduct your research you should also learn about the > difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. In brief, > Free Software does special things for moral reasons; it is "right" > that software be liberated. Open Source Software does special

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

sed. Many thanks, I hope we can close this (long!) thread soon with practical answers to these questions. Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701803.html Sent from the Revolution - User ma

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann wrote: > 1) my personal conclusion reading these is that the assumption you > make about stack files falling under GPL is.. questionable, but.. > arguable, particularly if there are elements of interfaces buttons > so on that would link to the engine. And the more intricated these >

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

ntime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701800.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

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

I don't think that's true. The Wordpress plugin author doesn't use Wordpress to actually type out the code yet it is still covered by the GPL. Sent from my iPhone > On 2 Mar 2016, at 10:26 AM, Matt Maier wrote: > > So, I supposed in theory (disclaimer: IANAL) > if you

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert did you read the quote I sent yesterday from the horses mouth? I very much doubt it would be profitable for anyone to take a different position than LiveCode Ltd on whether a stackFile is considered a plugin and therefore covered by the GPL. I have to say that I myself was unsure of this

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

e governed by the GPL license which only covers CODE. Again if live code see it or interpret it differently please do say so. Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701796.html Sent from the

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

out all those lines written in > EMACS. > > To me that argument is kind of "tiré par le cheveux" as we say in french. > (something like.. stretched out?). > > I love my android phone... > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > ht

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

h. (something like.. stretched out?). I love my android phone... -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701790.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

eed : > -- to do it yourself (if calling help from an indy is banned!) > -- invest in the tool 1000 bucks, plus.. > -- invest time in trying out things with a stange spread out documentation > here and there. > -- deal with mister apple and the niceties & subtleties one regul

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert Mann wrote: > Behing the great idea of a Open SOurce, it is surpassing to find > so much barriers being built around it. As Peter explained, for most use cases it's not all that deep. But for edge cases all licenses can be complex, open source and proprietary alike. The only reason

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

J. Landman Gay wrote: > If memory serves, the LC team has (had?) a service that would build > for iOS for you as well as help with all the back-end Apple > certification, etc. Is that still around? I don't believe so. As I wrote in this thread two days ago: > What I questionned is that

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

arly see in the forum.. Mumm.. sounds great!! -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701775.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Na

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

-- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701775.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 3/1/2016 2:09 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote: Why not publish your Apps for iOS using a Publisher Partner? Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner selected among our very own LiveCode fellow developers. We discussed this

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 7:38 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > > That "someone" would be violating the terms and conditions of their Indy (or > Business) license. > > If they were *lucky*, they would promptly find that they didn't have their > license any more. > > Needless

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

This doesn’t capture my part in this conversation. Personally, I am unconcerned about protecting my code/projects and I’m very happy to publish using the GPL license. But . . . BIG BUT . . . Apple won’t accept GPL, and I cannot afford the ever increasing price of the commercial license as a

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 01/03/2016 20:18, RM wrote: If by a "Publisher Partner" you mean getting someone who owns a licence to the Commercial version of Livecode to build you stacks from your standalones, that (while possibly not being illegal) seems sneaky and under-hand. I suppose someone will try this trick

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 1.03.2016 22:09, Monte Goulding wrote: On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote: Why not publish your Apps for iOS using a Publisher Partner? Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner selected among our very own LiveCode fellow developers. We discussed this during

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 5:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote: > > Why not publish your Apps for iOS > using a Publisher Partner? > > Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner > selected among our very own > LiveCode fellow developers. We discussed this during the original Kickstarter

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Yes, but unnecessary with the current Community Version. You can “publish” to your own (and other select) devices w/o jail-breaking them. Roger > On Mar 1, 2016, at 2:23 AM, RM wrote: > > This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> • What can we/or can't we do with the Open Source version > • Where does the commercial version step in > > So far, the Q/A on live code site that give examples only deals with the > CODE and not the content. The GPL requires that if you distribute your work, you distribute with it everything

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

far, the Q/A on live code site that give examples only deals with the CODE and not the content. Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701718.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing li

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

This is when you see why Jail-breaking iPhones and iPads is not necessarily a bad thing. Richmond. On 1.03.2016 03:32, Roger Guay wrote: Monty, I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC.

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Hi all, I have read most of this message thread too and for me personal this discussion is not about licenses etc. In my opinion this discussion fired up just because of MONEY (no news btw) and emotions (Apple/Hypercard/LiveCode). Enterprise users of LC will not have any problem to pay up to

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Thanks for clarifying Mark Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Mar 2016, at 7:07 PM, Mark Waddingham wrote: > > There are no gray areas here. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe,

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Usual IANAL terms apply :) On 2016-03-01 06:21, Monte Goulding wrote: My reading of this is that any content embedded in a stackFile should be licensed under the GPL. I could be wrong as I’m also not a lawyer! I would have thought that the spirit of the license that it applies to everything the

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:05:51 -0800 (PST), Alejandro Tejada wrote: > Hi all, > > I have read most of this message thread, > so please pardon me if someone has > proposed this before: > > Why not publish your Apps for iOS > using a Publisher Partner? > > Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner > selected

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:05 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote: > Why not publish your Apps for iOS > using a Publisher Partner? > > Maybe an iOS Publisher Partner > selected among our very own > LiveCode fellow developers. > I don't think that's allowed in the ELUA Stephen

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701706.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

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert you may like to take the following snipped quote from Mark Waddingham into consideration in your analysis of how GPL applies to stackFiles: I am not a lawyer, but it seems wise to at least provide some guidance in this case. Ultimately, it can only be guidance as we did not write the GPL

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

a stack a specific copyright >> protection >> for some elements. >> There would be a kind of conflict there. >> >> That is why, I thought it would not be a bad idea to keep a door opened >> for >> some protection on some cases even for individuals in

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

My apologies to you and Monte, if I sounded too defensive. I do hope that this idea of a non-profit/give-away app license will not be summarily dismissed. It just might be a benefit to all of us. Cheers, Roger > On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: >

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 3:01 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > > I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism. For the record so did I and neither did I ;-) > I was just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would > include. I guess I

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

I know you're a supporter Roger, I didn't mean to imply criticism. I was just curious what people would think a fair licensing scheme would include. I guess I did miss your original suggestion. I also wonder how a hobbyist license should be enforced, or if it should just be an honor system.

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Well, what I suggested a few posts back was a license for non-profits and give-away apps. But, I completely understand if that turns out to be difficult to police. I’m only trying to help here! Roger > On Feb 29, 2016, at 7:45 PM, J. Landman Gay wrote: > > On

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 2/29/2016 7:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote: Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!! Does it hurt anyone? Well, it could hurt the company if everyone suddenly decides they're a hobbyist. But let's take the thought experiment a little farther. What

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

> On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:32 PM, Roger Guay wrote: > > Once more, I point out that this might be a good new revenue stream for LC!!! > Does it hurt anyone? I guess it could hurt everyone that depends on the platform if it undercut the Indy license too much. One thing we know for

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

What estimate? I did say "might" as I really have no idea what y'all can afford :-) Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Mar 2016, at 12:10 PM, [-hh] wrote: > > Monte, Roger's question is clear. Why don't you answer it? > And show us the the data that's the base of your estimate?

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Monty, I’ve tried to be clear about this. I am not complaining, nor am I upset with anyone. I have only good wishes and intentions for LC and users of LC. I’ll get along with whatever LC brings to my future. But you know better than I, that Apple is not going to be moved. So why not make

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

My email wasn't displayed, perhaps because a suspected iPhone? No, No - I didn't sent this from anybody's iPhone ;-) ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

>>> Monte G. wrote: >>> One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful >>> of users that can't afford Indy and can't or won't use Community. >> Sent from my iPhone >> Roger G. wrote: >> Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and >> IOS in

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Roger if you are suggesting you would be happy with Community if you could publish GPL apps to Apple's stores then that's probably something to take up with Apple. Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Mar 2016, at 10:39 AM, Roger Guay wrote: > > Do you include those who might want to

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Do you include those who might want to publish to the Mac App Store and IOS in your estimate? Roger > On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Monte Goulding wrote: > > One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a handful of > users that can't afford Indy and

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

I believe the monthly subscription was dropped at the time of the open source release for exactly those reasons. Funnily enough LiveCode developers need to pay the bills too so need to avoid enabling people to game the system. One of the issues of course is that there really might only be a

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

st part of our economy will now more and more rely on these > rights. > > Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced > and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same > way?? > > best to all, > Robert > > > &

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

On 1.03.2016 00:16, Roger Guay wrote: I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this is another potential revenue source for LiveCode. Cheers, Roger That, now, makes sense. A sort of halfway house. There was (amidst the plethora of purchasing plans that

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

I couldn’t agree with you more, Robert. Plus, I will point out again, that this is another potential revenue source for LiveCode. Cheers, Roger > On Feb 29, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Robert Mann wrote: > > What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate >

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Robert, I appreciate your thorough thoughts on this. You covered a lot of ground, and you seem to have your mind well made up on open source license options so I won't try to convince you of anything here, just providing some links and background info for others who may share questions along

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

my will now more and more rely on these rights. Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open sourced and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same way?? best to all, Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richmond: I also find it hard to appreciate the seriousness of the problem. Seems like much ado about very little. Best, Bill > On Feb 29, 2016, at 11:45 AM, RM wrote: > > Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming languages > such as PASCAL

Re: Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Whichever way one cuts things, the most widely used programming languages such as PASCAL and C++ are as FREE as the air. As long as a language remains Unfree it is unlikely to be adopted widely. While Runtime Revolution / Livecode have, until comparatively recently, only had a closed source

Open source, closed source, and the value of code

While doing some research on Xanadu and Memex this weekend I came across this video of Bill Atkinson which seemed relevant to some of our recent threads here about the value of code: "HyperCard was always an authoring environment, it was never just browsing. I didn't separate the guys