hi, thanks for confirming what I guess is motherships point of view. That was'n at all crystal clear, but you now made it clear : no split license what so ever for live code community.
<< Absolutely every piece of software is derived from a set of files which can be considered the 'source code' - whether that be actual source-code, artwork, music, prose, or whatever - which is then processed using some set of tools to produce something that you can actually run and use - this is always 100% crystal clear. >> It might be a good thing for the community to append your examples of when to use Community and where to use Closed/commercial with that case with at least the 2 following cases : 1) I intend to include in a community stack content that is outside of the GPL scope => please use commercial version 2) i intend to test an app in the community by some distribution to some public ==> please use commercial version Finaly, your precise wording is quite wide, and that raises a question : ?? Does that paragraph cited above mean that live code would regard the strategy of deploying a community "reader app" for a certain type of separate content not welcomed as being outside the scope of the GPL mantra as they see it??? Thanks for confirming that. Robert -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Summary-Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701858p4701867.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
