Re: Livecode's CEF Builds
Mark, thanks for your in depth exploration of this issue ... Richard, the coded issue for me is to allow my users to view all youtube videos as well as any other streaming site that uses h264 ...youtube uses a different codec for their live stuff and a different one for the archived stuff. the archived stuff works for the most part. Netflix doesn't work Vimeo doesn't work and I haven't tested other websites yet. This issue is in regards to this project here. Something I have been working on for the past 50 days after realizing that 1. I needed a tool like this and 2. it will help to have a smaller project in my portfolio. https://www.makeshyft.com/timesavers-toolbox/ AND my desire to make the code open sourceto allow others to use the (Time Saver's) framework to build other apps and grow livecode community. So this issue is on behalf of my users who will inevitably want youtube to work fully. Sigh. On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 3:08 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 2018-09-11 07:32, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: > > 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. > > Note: You would also require a Contributor's License Agreement > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement) - as we do > - ensuring that any contributions to your GPLv3 licensed source code > assigns copyright to 'you' (or the copyright owner of the source base) > so that you can continue to dual license. > > 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 > ___ 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
On 2018-09-11 07:32, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: 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. Note: You would also require a Contributor's License Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement) - as we do - ensuring that any contributions to your GPLv3 licensed source code assigns copyright to 'you' (or the copyright owner of the source base) so that you can continue to dual license. 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
On 2018-09-11 03:14, Monte Goulding via use-livecode wrote: 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. Indeed - building a definitely non-GPLv3 encumbered libcef might require a fair bit more digging around and tweaking of flags. Then there’s whether the patents infringe on the GPL… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Well the GPLv3 certainly has a patent clause - https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html - Section 11. The first part seems quite clear - any contributor to a GPLv3 project automatically grants a 'patent license' to all recipients of the code for any patents they hold are are used by the code they contributed. i.e. If you own a patent, and make GPLv3 code available using it, then that code can be used freely (under GPLv3) terms. My (IANAL) Interpretation: You can't release code under GPLv3 (as copyright holder and patent holder) which uses any patents you hold without also implicitly granting a license to use said patent as used by the code under GPLv3 terms. The second part is less clear and is more applicable to this case. It sounds like if you knowingly convey a patent-encumbered GPLv3 code (even for patents you do not own) then you cannot both distribute the software under GPLv3, and allow restricted distribution of the project with a patent license - either you license for all potential recipients, or not at all. My (IANAL) Interpretation: You cannot distribute *knowingly* patent-encumbered projects under GPLv3 in fashion where you license directly or indirectly the patents for some, but not for others. e.g. 1) I build a H264 player to which I do not own copyright for in entirety, and release the code under GPLv3 - this is fine, its just code - but no-one actually has the right to run it. 2) I (or someone else) start distributing binaries of (1) without any patent license to anyone - this is fine GPLv3 wise, might not be fine MPEG LA patent license wise (if they count each person in receipt of a binary containing patent encumbered compiled code as a user). 3) I (or someone else) offers (for a fee or not) some recipients of (2) the appropriate patent license - not fine GPLv3 wise as such licensing has to be for all, or for none, and probably not fine MPEG LA license wise as not all binaries are being licensed appropriately (again assuming MPEG LA license binaries in hands of users). So a conservative interpretation would probably be that patents do not infringe on the GPLv3 per-se but, for all intents and purposes, GPLv3 code which is encumbered by non-universally licensed/licensable patents can only ever be 'code only' and never run. Methinks, avoiding knowingly patent-encumbered anything in LiveCode Community is probably the best thing to do :) 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. Apart from the issue of having a license to use the patent encumbered code - which is entirely orthogonal issue to licensing. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: Livecode's CEF Builds
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: Livecode's CEF Builds
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
Re: Livecode's CEF Builds
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
Re: Livecode's CEF Builds
Hi Monte, I was hoping that was the case, but I figured luck would have it i would need to build LC. Good to hear. The truth is I am not really sure how these fine details work..I definitely need clarity. We had to make a pivot with our products the sequence.so we have 2 on the go. one of my projects is GPL for sure but the most recent one, I am not sure yet. Leaning that way though. My inquiry has to do with this project https://www.makeshyft.com/timesavers-toolbox/ I would like the browser array feature to be able to work on all video sites...or at least most. There is a revenue model even though the codebase might go GPL3. Thanks for chiming in on this. I sent an email to the people in charge of this and i guess they will write me back. We'll see where all this goes, but i feel the product can definitely withstand this limitation for the time being. On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 6:35 PM Monte Goulding via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > On 10 Sep 2018, at 4:02 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > 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?LOL > > > Is that my only option? I may have to seriously consider doing whatever > it > > takes. > > Actually you _only_ need to build CEF and then can copy libcef.dll into > your app but you do have to build the exact revision used by the version of > LiveCode you want to use it with. However, correct me if I’m wrong but I > thought you use LiveCode Community as your project is GPL which I would > have thought would preclude you from incorporating proprietary codecs… Not > that I would know as IANAL ;-) > > Cheers > > Monte > ___ > 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
> On 10 Sep 2018, at 4:02 am, Tom Glod via use-livecode > wrote: > > 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?LOL > Is that my only option? I may have to seriously consider doing whatever it > takes. Actually you _only_ need to build CEF and then can copy libcef.dll into your app but you do have to build the exact revision used by the version of LiveCode you want to use it with. However, correct me if I’m wrong but I thought you use LiveCode Community as your project is GPL which I would have thought would preclude you from incorporating proprietary codecs… Not that I would know as IANAL ;-) Cheers Monte ___ 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
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
Re: Livecode's CEF Builds
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
Re: Livecode's CEF Builds
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?LOL Is that my only option? I may have to seriously consider doing whatever it takes. Thanks for the confirmation. On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> 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. > > Warmest Regards, > > Mark. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 9 Sep 2018, at 18:04, Tom Glod via use-livecode < > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone, I am wondering if any of you can shed light as to why the > > Chrome Embedded Framework that Livecode uses cannot be built with the > h264 > > and MSE (and maybe other codecs?)... is there no way to notify the > user > > of the license exception? .. or does it even matter? because no > > one is changing the code in the codec.? > > > > needless to say, the browser is needlessly restrictedin my view > > anyways. youtube half works...vimeo doesn't...neither does netflix and > God > > knows what else. > > > > If its not a problem..can someone please put in the extra flags? > > > > http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6=13515=30 > > > > THanks, > > > > Tom > > ___ > > 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
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. Warmest Regards, Mark. Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Sep 2018, at 18:04, Tom Glod via use-livecode > wrote: > > Hi Everyone, I am wondering if any of you can shed light as to why the > Chrome Embedded Framework that Livecode uses cannot be built with the h264 > and MSE (and maybe other codecs?)... is there no way to notify the user > of the license exception? .. or does it even matter? because no > one is changing the code in the codec.? > > needless to say, the browser is needlessly restrictedin my view > anyways. youtube half works...vimeo doesn't...neither does netflix and God > knows what else. > > If its not a problem..can someone please put in the extra flags? > > http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6=13515=30 > > THanks, > > Tom > ___ > 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
Livecode's CEF Builds
Hi Everyone, I am wondering if any of you can shed light as to why the Chrome Embedded Framework that Livecode uses cannot be built with the h264 and MSE (and maybe other codecs?)... is there no way to notify the user of the license exception? .. or does it even matter? because no one is changing the code in the codec.? needless to say, the browser is needlessly restrictedin my view anyways. youtube half works...vimeo doesn't...neither does netflix and God knows what else. If its not a problem..can someone please put in the extra flags? http://magpcss.org/ceforum/viewtopic.php?f=6=13515=30 THanks, Tom ___ 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
