Re: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

All this sounds like maybe looking for a GPL-compatible codec may be easier.

Tom, would WebM do what you need?

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/googles-updated-webm-license

https://www.webmproject.org

--
 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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2018-09-10 10:49, Lagi Pittas via use-livecode wrote:
Mark - can you find fault in my logic? And if not then if it is put 
into LC
it would have a setting for include/exclude as with the other 
libraries.


There is not fault in your logic (for the most part) - it is indeed 
something we have discussed internally briefly, but that doesn't mean we 
are anywhere near doing anything about it as yet...*


We could potentially at some point look at licensing the MPEG LA patent 
pool for some or all commercial builds of LiveCode - however this would 
only cover the IDE engine - which requires activation to use, hence 
meaning we have a precise user count for the purposes of the patent pool 
licensing.


The patent license would not extend to using the proprietary CEF build 
in standalones - that would need to be unlocked after someone had 
demonstrated to us that they had correctly licensed the MPEG LA patent 
pool and were accounting for users correctly. (A somewhat similar 
situation used to exist with GIF encoding in MetaCard before the LZW 
patent dropped).


I'm sure if i sold 100,000 of anything at $499  - $25,000 would be 
petty

cash.


Hah! Indeed.

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

* I'd point out here that building and maintaining custom CEF builds is 
not a small endeavour either time-wise or resource-wise so before 
undertaking such a thing we need to make sure it is actually 
'worth-while' in terms of ROI.


--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2018-09-11 05:03, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:

Seems like the GPL issue is in LiveCode’s court. They can specifically
allow linking to non-free libraries as a provision to the GPL license.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs


Yes and no.

I'm generally disinclined to add any (further) exceptions to the GPLv3 
License attached to the LiveCode repository - and certainly even more so 
for such a large and complicated project as CEF, especially where the 
reasons for doing so is to be able to incorporate patent-encumbered code 
where the licensing costs and methods for GPL binaries containing said 
code is unclear.


The two we currently have are for:

  1) revBrowser on Windows - due to the fact (at the time) ATL (a 
template-based C++ library which revBrowser uses for its embedding of 
the OS browser object) did not have any clear or sensible license 
attached to it which I could review for GPL compatibility.


  2) OpenSSL - the EAY and Apache 1.0 license this uses has an 
advertising clause which is incompatible with the GPL.


In regards to the effect of these then well (1) is largely moot - use 
CEF / browser widget instead. (2) is regrettable but not uncommon - the 
OpenSSL project have been trying to get hold of all copyright holders 
since March 2017 so they can switch to the GPL compatible Apache V2 
License so it is just a matter of time before that happens.


That being said - I wouldn't mind if someone had the time to making the 
dependence on OpenSSL more abstract, and switchable to a GPLv3 
compatible library (I must confess its been a while since I've looked at 
this, but there are at least a couple of options floating around).


I'd prefer LiveCode Community was GPLv3 pure - as any impurity creates 
friction and issues with combining with other GPLv3 software in your own 
applications.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

*

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Mark Waddingham via use-livecode]

On 2018-09-11 02:48, Tom Glod via use-livecode wrote:
So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the 
codec as

long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000

Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
github as GPL 3?  and build my standalones using LC with the modified 
CEF

files ?

If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?

Which license agreement does that break?


The GPLv3.

If you convey a binary which is built (in part) from GPLv3 source-code 
to which you do not hold the copyright, then the person receiving that 
binary is granted all the rights granted by the GPLv3 (virality).


Specifically they have a right to the exact source used to build that 
binary, and have the right to distribute said source and binary as they 
see fit.


The latter is why patent licensing is not clear when it comes to your 
situation - because it depends on how the MPEG LA patent pool counts 
users.


If, for example, they mean 'binary containing functional patent 
encumbered code in the hands of a user' - then you have no idea what 
your user count is - so I suspect they would be less amenable.


Is it also not an option to have community version and then a 
non-community
version like LC does?  I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25 
cents

per paid user whatever it is.


If you have a suitable commercial LiveCode license then you can dual 
license - assuming your application does not rely on GPLv3 licensed code 
you either do not have copyright too, or cannot gain a suitably 
compatible (commercial) license to.


So, your binaries would actually be non-GPLv3 licensed; but you would 
then be providing the source-code (which you own the copyright to) under 
GPLv3 on GitHub.


Whether that works depends on what the requirements on your project are 
re GPLv3 / Open-Sourceness.


Warmest Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Waddingham ~ m...@livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps

___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Maybe I need to email Kevin and tell him more about the project, the
problem and the lack of options. ... thanks for those links the plot
thickens.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 11:05 PM Brian Milby via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Seems like the GPL issue is in LiveCode’s court. They can specifically
> allow linking to non-free libraries as a provision to the GPL license.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
> On Sep 10, 2018, 9:23 PM -0500, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>, wrote:
> > Thats what I am thinking too. I will do my best to find a legal
> > perspective on this.
> >
> > didn't Runrev have to ship the first LC Community with something
> > proprietery in it too? I remember seeing a note about it in the
> installer.
> > or maybe i was hallucinating.
> >
> > Why do my standalones have to be GPL3 too? you can't change code in
> > binary so isn't it the source files I am obligated to share?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure there is a way to do this. So close. :) Thanks
> > Monte... I appreciate not taking chances I'm not interested in
> > litigation.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:14 PM Monte Goulding via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There’s some questions here that need a lawyer to answer.
> > >
> > > To start with I think you need to ensure that building CEF with
> > > proprietary codecs enabled does not include anything that has a license
> > > that is incompatible with GPL 3. Otherwise you can’t distribute your
> > > standalone with the modified CEF under the GPL 3. FWIW I have built CEF
> > > with proprietary codecs and due to the complexity of chromium I would
> still
> > > need to spend a few days reviewing code to know exactly what was
> included
> > > when I did that. I do know there’s OpenH264 in there which is BSD
> licensed.
> > >
> > > Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> > >
> > > FWIW if you can satisfy yourself that you aren’t infringing the GPL
> > > distributing the standalone with CEF built with proprietary codecs
> enabled
> > > then you should just be able to add some notes about that to include
> with
> > > your source like you would note that when distributed as a standalone
> it
> > > includes the LiveCode engine and where to find the source and build
> > > instructions for that etc… although again IANAL.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Monte
> > >
> > > > On 11 Sep 2018, at 10:48 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the
> codec
> > > as
> > > > long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000
> > > >
> > > > Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
> > > > github as GPL 3? and build my standalones using LC with the modified
> CEF
> > > > files ?
> > > >
> > > > If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
> > > > application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?
> > > >
> > > > Which license agreement does that break?
> > > >
> > > > Is it also not an option to have community version and then a
> > > non-community
> > > > version like LC does? I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25
> > > cents
> > > > per paid user whatever it is.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any way to this work and still put my .livecode file on
> github?
> > > > ...but ship standalones with the modified CEF build?
> > >
> > > ___
> > > 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
___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Brian Milby via use-livecode]

Seems like the GPL issue is in LiveCode’s court. They can specifically allow 
linking to non-free libraries as a provision to the GPL license.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

Thanks,
Brian
On Sep 10, 2018, 9:23 PM -0500, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
, wrote:
> Thats what I am thinking too. I will do my best to find a legal
> perspective on this.
>
> didn't Runrev have to ship the first LC Community with something
> proprietery in it too? I remember seeing a note about it in the installer.
> or maybe i was hallucinating.
>
> Why do my standalones have to be GPL3 too? you can't change code in
> binary so isn't it the source files I am obligated to share?
>
> I'm pretty sure there is a way to do this. So close. :) Thanks
> Monte... I appreciate not taking chances I'm not interested in
> litigation.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:14 PM Monte Goulding via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > There’s some questions here that need a lawyer to answer.
> >
> > To start with I think you need to ensure that building CEF with
> > proprietary codecs enabled does not include anything that has a license
> > that is incompatible with GPL 3. Otherwise you can’t distribute your
> > standalone with the modified CEF under the GPL 3. FWIW I have built CEF
> > with proprietary codecs and due to the complexity of chromium I would still
> > need to spend a few days reviewing code to know exactly what was included
> > when I did that. I do know there’s OpenH264 in there which is BSD licensed.
> >
> > Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> >
> > FWIW if you can satisfy yourself that you aren’t infringing the GPL
> > distributing the standalone with CEF built with proprietary codecs enabled
> > then you should just be able to add some notes about that to include with
> > your source like you would note that when distributed as a standalone it
> > includes the LiveCode engine and where to find the source and build
> > instructions for that etc… although again IANAL.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Monte
> >
> > > On 11 Sep 2018, at 10:48 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the codec
> > as
> > > long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000
> > >
> > > Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
> > > github as GPL 3? and build my standalones using LC with the modified CEF
> > > files ?
> > >
> > > If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
> > > application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?
> > >
> > > Which license agreement does that break?
> > >
> > > Is it also not an option to have community version and then a
> > non-community
> > > version like LC does? I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25
> > cents
> > > per paid user whatever it is.
> > >
> > > Is there any way to this work and still put my .livecode file on github?
> > > ...but ship standalones with the modified CEF build?
> >
> > ___
> > 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

Re: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

Thats what I am thinking too. I will do my best to find a legal
perspective on this.

didn't Runrev have to ship the first LC Community with something
proprietery in it too? I remember seeing a note about it in the installer.
or maybe i was hallucinating.

Why do my standalones have to be GPL3 too? you can't change code in
binary so isn't it the source files I am obligated to share?

I'm pretty sure there is a way to do this. So close. :)  Thanks
Monte... I appreciate not taking chances I'm not interested in
litigation.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 9:14 PM Monte Goulding via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> There’s some questions here that need a lawyer to answer.
>
> To start with I think you need to ensure that building CEF with
> proprietary codecs enabled does not include anything that has a license
> that is incompatible with GPL 3. Otherwise you can’t distribute your
> standalone with the modified CEF under the GPL 3. FWIW I have built CEF
> with proprietary codecs and due to the complexity of chromium I would still
> need to spend a few days reviewing code to know exactly what was included
> when I did that. I do know there’s OpenH264 in there which is BSD licensed.
>
> Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL…  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> FWIW if you can satisfy yourself that you aren’t infringing the GPL
> distributing the standalone with CEF built with proprietary codecs enabled
> then you should just be able to add some notes about that to include with
> your source like you would note that when distributed as a standalone it
> includes the LiveCode engine and where to find the source and build
> instructions for that etc… although again IANAL.
>
> Cheers
>
> Monte
>
> > On 11 Sep 2018, at 10:48 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the codec
> as
> > long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000
> >
> > Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
> > github as GPL 3?  and build my standalones using LC with the modified CEF
> > files ?
> >
> > If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
> > application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?
> >
> > Which license agreement does that break?
> >
> > Is it also not an option to have community version and then a
> non-community
> > version like LC does?  I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25
> cents
> > per paid user whatever it is.
> >
> > Is there any way to this work and still put my .livecode file on github?
> > ...but ship standalones with the modified CEF build?
>
> ___
> 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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Monte Goulding via use-livecode]

There’s some questions here that need a lawyer to answer. 

To start with I think you need to ensure that building CEF with proprietary 
codecs enabled does not include anything that has a license that is 
incompatible with GPL 3. Otherwise you can’t distribute your standalone with 
the modified CEF under the GPL 3. FWIW I have built CEF with proprietary codecs 
and due to the complexity of chromium I would still need to spend a few days 
reviewing code to know exactly what was included when I did that. I do know 
there’s OpenH264 in there which is BSD licensed.

Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL…  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FWIW if you can satisfy yourself that you aren’t infringing the GPL 
distributing the standalone with CEF built with proprietary codecs enabled then 
you should just be able to add some notes about that to include with your 
source like you would note that when distributed as a standalone it includes 
the LiveCode engine and where to find the source and build instructions for 
that etc… although again IANAL.

Cheers

Monte

> On 11 Sep 2018, at 10:48 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the codec as
> long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
> github as GPL 3?  and build my standalones using LC with the modified CEF
> files ?
> 
> If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
> application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?
> 
> Which license agreement does that break?
> 
> Is it also not an option to have community version and then a non-community
> version like LC does?  I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25 cents
> per paid user whatever it is.
> 
> Is there any way to this work and still put my .livecode file on github?
> ...but ship standalones with the modified CEF build?

___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

So I got a msg back and they are totally down with me shipping the codec as
long as I pay the fees for the # of licenses I sell past 100,000

Correct me if I am wrong, can I not put the code of my application on
github as GPL 3?  and build my standalones using LC with the modified CEF
files ?

If someone builds from the standalones on github they get the full
application except the avc / h264 codec in CEF?

Which license agreement does that break?

Is it also not an option to have community version and then a non-community
version like LC does?  I am really down for paying the 40 cents or 25 cents
per paid user whatever it is.

Is there any way to this work and still put my .livecode file on github?
...but ship standalones with the modified CEF build?


On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:41 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Lagi Pittas wrote:
>
>  > I have read a few articles about this  - and I think Livecode doesn't
>  > have a problem with building it in - here is my take.
>
> Is the licensing compatible with GPLv3?
>
> --
>   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: 4WDevolution question

[Geoff Canyon via use-livecode]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 9:08 AM J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Just a tip for those not using devo: cmd-ctrl-shift-right click on any
> stack displays a menu with many different options, one of which is to save
> the stack regardless of the mode. It also allows you to send messages to
> the card or stack directly (easier than the message box for stacks not
> toplevel, ) access scripts and inspectors, and more.
>

Hopefully I don't break my arm patting myself on the back, but Navigator
not only lets you send messages to objects, it lets you specify the
parameters for commands that take parameters, and lets you call functions
(with parameters, natch) and tells you what the result is, and further, it
can trigger setprop handlers correctly, and will tell you the result of
getprop handlers as well.

...in addition to pretty much everything else listed above. Okay, my arm's
pretty sore now...
___
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: Project Browser - refresh button still not available

[Geoff Canyon via use-livecode]

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 3:38 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

>
> Ha! The PB is a maintenance nightmare... you're looking at 12 mainstacks
> plus a behavior stack or two, and some seemingly random stuff thrown in
> for good measure... still haven't figured out what the "Clap.mp3"
> audioclip is for.
>

Sometimes Navigator is no maintenance picnic either ;-)

I was going to say that Navigator doesn't update like this because the
stacks are in a menu rather than the list, but then I remembered the stack
list view, so that shows what I know. There is an Update List Now command
in the Actions menu, but I just checked, and any update to the selection in
LiveCode causes the list to refresh automatically. So if you create a new
stack, it won't show up immediately, but as soon as you drag a control into
it (or anything else like that) the list will update then.

So, yay!

gc
___
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

View manifest in compiled Android app

[Andrew Bell via use-livecode]

I just had a mobile app submission rejected from Google Play for  
"Violation of Device and Network Abuse policy" which is an extremely  
vague category of issues. Based on some StackOverflow research, it  
seems that a common fix to this is to ensure that the following line  
appears in your manifest:



I've found the default manifest in Tools/Runtime/Android/Manifest.xml  
but can't find a way to see the manifest built when my stack is  
compiled (like I can locate Info.plist in an iOS .ipa). Does anyone  
know how I can see what is in my compiled manifest, or better yet,  
have any indication as to what would trigger that violation?


Since I last submitted a build of this app, I have switched some  
network calls over from libURL to tsNET and am using 9.0.1rc3 so the  
app is being built against the proper SDK and targeted to the  
appropriate API level. Previous submission would have likely been some  
pre-release 9.0.0 build based on the date of approval.


Nothing else has changed network-wise other than an additional  
instance of a mobileBrowser (of which there were already 2 before),  
and there are no in-app ads or YouTube videos being played (which  
seems to be one of the major triggers for this type of rejection), and  
I'm not using the Map widget (which would use Google APIs). I thought  
that looking at the manifest file for this app would quickly allow me  
to determine if a quick patch can be done or if I need to dig deeper  
for the root of the problem.


--Andrew Bell



___
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

hard-to-use software

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

Disclaimer- I hate modal software. And yet...

https://qz.com/1378298/forget-easy-to-use-design-choose-something-hard-instead/

...food for thought.
(be sure to click on the link about the 'endless jokes')

--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Richard Gaskin via use-livecode]

Lagi Pittas wrote:

> I have read a few articles about this  - and I think Livecode doesn't
> have a problem with building it in - here is my take.

Is the licensing compatible with GPLv3?

--
 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: 3WDevolution question

[Mark Wieder via use-livecode]

On 09/10/2018 08:12 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:

All my apps do this, but typically, unless the developer has a bug up his butt 
about the old fullscreen method, if you hold the option key down while clicking 
the green maximize control, it should work like the old way. There is an option 
in preferences too I think to switch back to the old way by default.


Developers will sometimes put in new features in such a way that you have to do 
something to NOT use them. This is a perfect example. Microsoft's Ribbons is 
another. Apple *could* have added the fullscreen feature but informed us that 
you have to hold the option key down to do it. Instead they did the reverse. 
Their thinking is probably that if they don't force people to use a new 
feature, they probably won't. Very likely. On the other hand, I don't feel 
developers should take the liberty of changing how I work on *my* computer, 
without having a really good reason for doing so.



Fullscreen mode for a stack on osx seems more like kiosk mode. I'd 
expect that fullscreen would maximize the stack, the way it does on 
other platforms, and the way other applications work, and that kiosk 
mode would be a more specialized when you really don't want a menubar 
appearing at the top of the screen.


But then if I wanted some control over my environment I'd use linux.


--
 Mark Wieder
 ahsoftw...@gmail.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: iOS 12 compatibility

[Colin Holgate via use-livecode]

You could write that you have tested under iOS 12, maybe that would be ok? 
Saying that you had to do something proactive in order to support iOS 12 is 
indirectly reporting that Apple software had issues.


> On Sep 10, 2018, at 11:37 AM, Randy Hengst via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> What version of LC and Xcode combination did you use for your build?
> 
> be well,
> randy
> www.classroomFocusedSoftware.com
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Thank you Livecode crew for patching Bug 21396 that required 
>> acceleratedRendering to be TRUE in order for an app to launch in iOS 12! 
>> Word of advice to developers as they submit their new builds to Apple 
>> (because if you don't, and you don't have acceleratedRendering enabled in 
>> your stack, your app won't launch in the new operating system): don't 
>> mention the fact that the new OS broke the existing app.
>> 
>> In my "What's New in This Version" text, I mentioned "added iOS 12 
>> compatibility" which apparently is a big no-no. My latest submission got 
>> rejected for breaking PLA 2.3 which states "Apple may provide You with 
>> pre-release versions of the Apple Software or related services that 
>> constitute Apple Confidential Information and are subject to the 
>> confidentiality obligations of this Agreement."
>> 
>> So Apple released a public beta, that beta broke developer software as 
>> reported by public beta users, but we can't speak of such things. *eye roll*
>> 
>> Luckily this is just a metadata rejection that doesn't require a new build. 
>> Just thought I'd share my experience to help save someone else the 
>> embarrassment of breaking your NDA with a company who has a $1T market cap.
>> 
>> --Andrew Bell
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: iOS 12 compatibility

[Randy Hengst via use-livecode]

Hi Andrew,

What version of LC and Xcode combination did you use for your build?

be well,
randy
www.classroomFocusedSoftware.com



> On Sep 10, 2018, at 10:30 AM, Andrew Bell via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thank you Livecode crew for patching Bug 21396 that required 
> acceleratedRendering to be TRUE in order for an app to launch in iOS 12! Word 
> of advice to developers as they submit their new builds to Apple (because if 
> you don't, and you don't have acceleratedRendering enabled in your stack, 
> your app won't launch in the new operating system): don't mention the fact 
> that the new OS broke the existing app.
> 
> In my "What's New in This Version" text, I mentioned "added iOS 12 
> compatibility" which apparently is a big no-no. My latest submission got 
> rejected for breaking PLA 2.3 which states "Apple may provide You with 
> pre-release versions of the Apple Software or related services that 
> constitute Apple Confidential Information and are subject to the 
> confidentiality obligations of this Agreement."
> 
> So Apple released a public beta, that beta broke developer software as 
> reported by public beta users, but we can't speak of such things. *eye roll*
> 
> Luckily this is just a metadata rejection that doesn't require a new build. 
> Just thought I'd share my experience to help save someone else the 
> embarrassment of breaking your NDA with a company who has a $1T market cap.
> 
> --Andrew Bell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: iOS 12 compatibility

[Andrew Bell via use-livecode]

Thank you Livecode crew for patching Bug 21396 that required  
acceleratedRendering to be TRUE in order for an app to launch in iOS  
12! Word of advice to developers as they submit their new builds to  
Apple (because if you don't, and you don't have acceleratedRendering  
enabled in your stack, your app won't launch in the new operating  
system): don't mention the fact that the new OS broke the existing app.


In my "What's New in This Version" text, I mentioned "added iOS 12  
compatibility" which apparently is a big no-no. My latest submission  
got rejected for breaking PLA 2.3 which states "Apple may provide You  
with pre-release versions of the Apple Software or related services  
that constitute Apple Confidential Information and are subject to the  
confidentiality obligations of this Agreement."


So Apple released a public beta, that beta broke developer software as  
reported by public beta users, but we can't speak of such things. *eye  
roll*


Luckily this is just a metadata rejection that doesn't require a new  
build. Just thought I'd share my experience to help save someone else  
the embarrassment of breaking your NDA with a company who has a $1T  
market cap.


--Andrew Bell




___
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: Being stupid for a change

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

Your wish is granted! IDEs are not people, and therefore have no expectations 
at all! ;-)

Bob S


> On Sep 8, 2018, at 11:49 , Tom Glod via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> perfect case for better error messages .. people get tired.. our
> ide's should never expect perfect humans and try to be as helpful as
> possible.


___
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: Datagrid deleteline vs deletelines issue

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

I've encountered that. I have considered replacing all my singular instances of 
deleteline with the plural deletelines and then always use the plural version. 
Problem solved. 

Bob S


> On Sep 9, 2018, at 09:50 , hlowe via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> The Dictionary states that the command 'deleteline': "Deletes the specified
> lines from the data grid.
> 
> The syntax is:
> 
> dispatch "DeleteLine" to group "DataGrid" with pLine
> 
> where pLine is a comma-delimited list of one or more integers, indicating
> the lines to be deleted.
> 
> So to delete lines 1,2 and 3 of the datagrid "myDG" we would use:
> 
> put "1,2,3" into pLine
> dispatch "DeleteLine" to group "myDG" with pLine
> 
> The Dictionary also states that the command 'deletelines' (note the plural
> form) is a synonym for deleteline, implying that either form will do the
> same thing.
> 
> However 'deleteline' using LC 9.0.1 (RC3) on a Mac (running an iOS App in
> both the emulator and on the device) will only accept a single line number
> in its 'pLine' parameter. Passing more that one integer in 'pLine' causes
> 'deleteline' to fail silently. To delete more that one line, I must use the
> pleural form of the command 'deletelines'.
> 
> put "1,2,3" into pLine
> dispatch "DeleteLine" to group "myDG" with pLine
> 
> fails silently
> 
> while
> 
> put "1,2,3" into pLine
> dispatch "DeleteLines" to group "myDG" with pLine
> 
> succeeds
> 
> A bug, a Dictionary issue or something more complex?
> 
> Can anyone else confirm this?
> 
> Henry
> 
> Ascriva Health Informatics
> https://www.ascriva.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from: 
> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Revolution-User-f278306.html
> 
> ___
> 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: 3WDevolution question

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

All my apps do this, but typically, unless the developer has a bug up his butt 
about the old fullscreen method, if you hold the option key down while clicking 
the green maximize control, it should work like the old way. There is an option 
in preferences too I think to switch back to the old way by default. 


Developers will sometimes put in new features in such a way that you have to do 
something to NOT use them. This is a perfect example. Microsoft's Ribbons is 
another. Apple *could* have added the fullscreen feature but informed us that 
you have to hold the option key down to do it. Instead they did the reverse. 
Their thinking is probably that if they don't force people to use a new 
feature, they probably won't. Very likely. On the other hand, I don't feel 
developers should take the liberty of changing how I work on *my* computer, 
without having a really good reason for doing so. 


Bob S


> On Sep 8, 2018, at 09:13 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Put the mouse at the top of screen to display menubar or type escape at the 
>> keyboard
> 
> Doh! Thanks. I had tried escape but didn't move the mouse up to the top. I 
> imagine there must be precedent for this, but none of my other osx 
> applications work this way (maximizing while removing the title bar). The 
> stack decorations are set to default.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Wieder
> ahsoftw...@gmail.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: Slow LC 9 Performance - Test Stack, Video, QA Report

[Bob Sneidar via use-livecode]

That's the first thing I thought. Either everything is treated as a string 
until math is performed on it, or we have had a crude form of variable typing 
from the beginning and didn't know it. 

Bob S


> On Sep 7, 2018, at 20:56 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm suspicious enough of the sleight-of-hand that underpins the use of 
> unquoted string literals not to trust the easy answers, and to think that 
> under the hood in the engine everything at the script level is an MCString 
> until necessarily converted internally for computation. And then back again.
> 
> But just guessing.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Wieder


___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Tom Glod via use-livecode]

I read that pricing info as wellwhich is why i am willing to enter into
a contract with them.

interesting.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:49 AM Lagi Pittas via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> I have read a few articles about this  - and I think Livecode doesn't have
> a problem with building it in - here is my take.
>
> Foe under 100,000 uses/sales/installs (whatever) there is no charge.
>
> 100,000 to 250,000 is $25000
>
> I assume  Livecode has NOT sold more than 100,000  copies of Indy or
> Business.
>
> Now there could be a chance that they might get 100,000 downloads of the
> open source LC so to cover yourselves why not only put it in the paid
> version.
>
> If LC ever gets 100,000 paid Indy/Business the $25,000 would be chump
> change.
>
> Now If I produce a program using the h264 encoder using my indy version of
> LC - I would have to sell (or give away) 100,000 programs before i need to
> pay a royalty.
>
> Now the only way this is going to happen is on the App store - not selling
> a desktop system so If the lite version of my program DOES NOT INCLUDE the
> h264 encoder but thge paid for version does
> if I get 100,000 downloads of the paid for version I would only need to pay
> a royalty of 25 cents for each sale?
>
> This also gives LC  compelling l reason for putting something extra into
> the closed source version that people could appreciate
>
> Mark - can you find fault in my logic? And if not then if it is put into LC
> it would have a setting for include/exclude as with the other libraries.
>
> I'm sure if i sold 100,000 of anything at $499  - $25,000 would be petty
> cash.
>
>
> Regards Lagi
>
>
> Now at the rate that
>
> On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 22:48, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > f-bomb! ty for those resources Richard.
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Tom Glod wrote:
> > >
> > >  > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM Mark Waddingham wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  >> H264 is patent encumbered - in order to distribute software
> > >  >> containing an implementation you need to license the MPEG-LA patent
> > >  >> pool.
> > >  >>
> > >  >> That's why you won't find any public CEF prebuilts with the flag
> > >  >> enabled.
> > >  >
> > >  > If I do that . I then have to make my own build of CEF, My own
> > >  > build of Livecode, and then build my standalones?  What could go
> > >  > wrong?
> > >
> > > Patent litigation.
> > >
> > > The licensing around h.264 is complex enough that the owning patent
> > > pool, MPEG-LA, has put together an FAQ to help navigate its rules:
> > > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx
> > >
> > > Numerous lay articles have been written to help consumers and
> developers
> > > try to navigate that legal minefield:
> > >
> > > H.264, patent licensing, and you
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
> > >
> > > A closer look at the costs (and fine print) of H.264 licenses
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/
> > >
> > > H.264 patents: how much do they really cost?
> > >
> >
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/
> > >
> > > Oh so many more:
> > > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=h.264+patent+licensing
> > >
> > > --
> > >   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
> >
> ___
> 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

[ANN] This Week in LiveCode 145

[panagiotis merakos via use-livecode]

Hi all,

Read about new developments in LiveCode open source and the open source
community in today's edition of the "This Week in LiveCode" newsletter!

Read issue #145 here: https://goo.gl/WQPYZu

This is a weekly newsletter about LiveCode, focussing on what's been
going on in and around the open source project. New issues will be
released weekly on Mondays. We have a dedicated mailing list that will
deliver each issue directly to you e-mail, so you don't miss any!

If you have anything you'd like mentioned (a project, a discussion
somewhere, an upcoming event) then please get in touch.

-- 
Panagiotis Merakos 
LiveCode Software Developer

Everyone Can Create Apps 
___
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: Livecode's CEF Builds

[Lagi Pittas via use-livecode]

I have read a few articles about this  - and I think Livecode doesn't have
a problem with building it in - here is my take.

Foe under 100,000 uses/sales/installs (whatever) there is no charge.

100,000 to 250,000 is $25000

I assume  Livecode has NOT sold more than 100,000  copies of Indy or
Business.

Now there could be a chance that they might get 100,000 downloads of the
open source LC so to cover yourselves why not only put it in the paid
version.

If LC ever gets 100,000 paid Indy/Business the $25,000 would be chump
change.

Now If I produce a program using the h264 encoder using my indy version of
LC - I would have to sell (or give away) 100,000 programs before i need to
pay a royalty.

Now the only way this is going to happen is on the App store - not selling
a desktop system so If the lite version of my program DOES NOT INCLUDE the
h264 encoder but thge paid for version does
if I get 100,000 downloads of the paid for version I would only need to pay
a royalty of 25 cents for each sale?

This also gives LC  compelling l reason for putting something extra into
the closed source version that people could appreciate

Mark - can you find fault in my logic? And if not then if it is put into LC
it would have a setting for include/exclude as with the other libraries.

I'm sure if i sold 100,000 of anything at $499  - $25,000 would be petty
cash.


Regards Lagi


Now at the rate that

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 22:48, Tom Glod via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> f-bomb! ty for those resources Richard.
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:48 PM Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom Glod wrote:
> >
> >  > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM Mark Waddingham wrote:
> >  >
> >  >> H264 is patent encumbered - in order to distribute software
> >  >> containing an implementation you need to license the MPEG-LA patent
> >  >> pool.
> >  >>
> >  >> That's why you won't find any public CEF prebuilts with the flag
> >  >> enabled.
> >  >
> >  > If I do that . I then have to make my own build of CEF, My own
> >  > build of Livecode, and then build my standalones?  What could go
> >  > wrong?
> >
> > Patent litigation.
> >
> > The licensing around h.264 is complex enough that the owning patent
> > pool, MPEG-LA, has put together an FAQ to help navigate its rules:
> > http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx
> >
> > Numerous lay articles have been written to help consumers and developers
> > try to navigate that legal minefield:
> >
> > H.264, patent licensing, and you
> >
> >
> https://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-patent-licensing-and-you/
> >
> > A closer look at the costs (and fine print) of H.264 licenses
> >
> >
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/
> >
> > H.264 patents: how much do they really cost?
> >
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/h-264-patents-how-much-do-they-really-cost/
> >
> > Oh so many more:
> > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=h.264+patent+licensing
> >
> > --
> >   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
>
___
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