You wouldn't necessarily even need that much. Tell them to install the free
version and open your stack from the File menu. It isn't an app but they'd
have all the capabilities.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On September
On 04/09/2021 15:36, David Bovill via use-livecode wrote:
So the question here is why not do the same here - keep a free-to-develop
“trial version” without the compilation framework and tools. I’m curious to the
reasoning. The cynic in me would say that the assumption is that there are too
I use RevApplicationOverview exclusively and haven't had the problem. My
guess would be that the standalone builder attaches those substacks and
then reopens the wrong copy when it's done. But I'm not sure.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software |
Hello,
The stacks concerned are not so old! It must be LiveCode 6 or 7.
I have the impression that the RevApplicationOverview plugin has an influence
in the problem. I’ll dig on it.
Ludovic
> Le 3 sept. 2021 à 20:04, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> a écrit :
>
> On 9/3/21 3:53 AM,
David, thats an interesting model to bring up.
I wonder how much of this new direction is considered to be etched in
stone, and how much is up for tweaking still. Very happy to see signs that
the team is listening to all the feedback.
On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 10:37 AM David Bovill via
The clearest example of a free-forever development licence which you pay for
when you wish to release your app is obviously Unity 3D. I remember when this
project was a small developer community supported by a company and community of
keen early adopters. I asked then why Livecode Ltd didn’t
